About Inheritance

[Sunshinelollipops1]

4 siblings A, B, C and D. 3 eldest are in their 50s. Youngest was “a happy accident” and is in 30s.

After D was born the Mum of the family developed serious illness and A who had just finished university came Home and basically brought up A and looked after Mum while the Dad worked. A has spent her entire life as Carer for Mum who died 5 years ago. A couple of years after this Dad became ill. A cared for him and he has now died.

Only real asset is House. Worth about 500k. Will says divide by 4.

B and C have good jobs (probably 50-60k per annum), houses and families. C has a huge mortgage as they have pulled out equity to fund holidays, cars etc. Both have kids in their 20s.

D is a professional and earns 150k. Married and young children.

2 bed flat in area of House will cost 350k (SE). D says A should get enough of will to buy flat and rest can be split between 3. (This means B, C and D will get about 40k each rather then 125k).

B says while he would like to do that he needs to help his kids on property ladder and that 40k won’t be sufficient (3 kids).

C says the will is clear and should be shared equally. He also adds D is only suggesting this as they will end up sole beneficiary of As will (A and D being incredibly close).

D has offered to give B and C their proportion of money so they would get 60k each. Both have said no.

A doesn’t want anyone to fall out, says the money should be shared in 4 and says it’s fine, they’ll find work and use the equity as rent (they won’t get mortgage).

D thinks B and C are being selfish. C thinks D is (and ultimately doing this to get all the money).

Who is AIBU and what should be done?

It’s interesting that the 2 greedy selfish children are both men.

Yes, because only men are capable of selfish entitled behaviour. FFS

Search on here for inheritance/CF threads, it becomes pretty clear that shit head behaviour is not confined to one gender.

Stick to the will then any sibling who wishes to give A a share of their inheritance is free to do so

This

The fairest thing is to split four ways. The rest is just rubbish grabby reasoning. Having chosen studies and jobs that pay less or more was a life choice, having children (if you can) is a life choice, taking care of parents or children is a choice. It's grabby to say to your siblings: I made this choice, now give me more money.

It's clear Op is D and writing it from D's biased prospective.

If D really cared, then they could save the excess money they earn over B and C over very short length of time. It's easy to be generous with other people's money.
D earns £90k more than B or C a year, and presumably expect it to go up. That means in 4 years if they only save the excess then they will be able to buy outright a flat for A.

And the childcare drip feed. Well, clearly the OP is either adding that to give sympathy or is making it up as she goes along.
Because first of all it's "childcare" then when pointed out that she's already said they're in their 20s, it becomes "a good proportion of their holidays".
In their 20s they're presumably working, probably looking towards starting families etc. Their holiday is not going to be more than 30 days a year, so probably you're talking about maximum a fortnight a year-which is unlikely to continue once they settle down with partners etc.
So she "needs" a 2 bed place for 6 weeks a year and a 1 bed for the rest of the time.

I think if you looked at B or C's information you would find a very different scenario.

D may not realise a lot of the background having been too young to realise, or they may be indeed trying to get a greater bite of the cherry through A.
They certainly shouldn't be pressurising the other two.

@73Sunglasslover Cs children are adults in their twenties.

Ita not free childcare. It's a niece/nephews visiting their aunt. But that wouldnt have had the same impact that the OP wanted.

The will should be followed. If the parents wanted A to inherit more as they have lived in the house etc then the will would have been changed to reflect that. If D is concerned A won’t be able to but then she’s should give her part to A and perhaps A should look at getting a one bedroom flat instead of two.

"A caring for D as well as her parents has enabled D to go on and have a very high paying career." Which D is clearly acknowledging, unlike her brothers, who have been able to have careers and families and are reasonably well off with quite a nice inheritance to look forward to thanks to their not having had to spend money on their parents' care because their elder sister was doing the caring.

I think it is interesting that the siblings not only wanting to spend their own inheritance but other peoples too are the ones to call others selfish for simply wanting to hang onto their own share.

If I was C I would think I had every right to my own share of the inheritance that my parents chose to leave to me. Parents of all four children equally.

“A” may have made some selfless decisions but it was never a paid position and the situation she finds herself in is not the other siblings fault. She needs to explore her options including rent/work/moving somewhere affordable (whether geographically or smaller).

@Hesafriendfromwork

Wow!! Even less of an argument for a larger place then! I am shocked they would be described as children therefore and it suggests that the OP is trying to stack the argument in D's favour (or A's depending on how they look at it). I wonder whether B and C have spare rooms for grow up 'children' to visit in?

Personal circumstances are completely irrelevant. Doesn't matter if one is a millionaire and one a pauper. We live our lives as a result of our choices. No-one had to care for anybody. Four way split.

I think B and C suck for letting A do all the heavy lifting when parents were ill and their younger sibling needed raising, meaning A couldn't plan well for her own future ... B and C were presumably able to work and plan for their own futures while A was taking care of their parents.

Sadly, parents should have recognized this in their will. D is right.

@SunniDay

I agree with you here. If A had expected to get more inheritance because of the choices she made she should have discussed this with her siblings. It is not right to make assumptions which ultimately cost then 80K. We do not have enough information to assume that this amount would have been lost in care fees. We do have enough information to know that the decisions A made were not always inevitable. Plenty of single dads raise children without family help in any way so giving up a career when the mother got ill in order to care for D is a wonderful thing to do but never was the only solution. We also know a lot less about B and C's financial positions than we think they do as well as knowing virtually nothing about how/ if B and C actually contributed over the years. D may not be privvy to this information. For example, I had a cousin who could not cope with the emotions when my gran went into care. He never visited her. Looked unfeeling in some ways (but wasn't) but actually paid for most of her care himself (he was a big earner, she had only state pension). Outsiders might have thought he had no right to any funds left when she died because they did not so easily see what he was doing.

Sounds like C thought he was the big I Am until little sister outpaced his earning!

D sounds lovely and all this ‘you just want A to have it because you’ll inherit from her’ says a lot about C’s personality and the way he thinks. If A stays single that money will be gone before it’s inherited.

Sad situation.

As someone whose parents left different shares to each of their children, causing a great deal of emotional damage, I would say that they have done the right thing by splitting things equally and that is what should happen.

@73Sunglasslover I know.

A does provide child care on occasion for D. Who are actually children. So I suspect that's who the 2nd room is for.

OP said she used child care mistakenly but 'providing free childcare for C', imo was designed to make C look like more of a dick. The niece/nephew are visiting and that's not providing anything for C. Given that A is so close to these adult niece and nephew, its not beyond the realms of possibility A wants then to get their own home out of the inheritance.

I suspect op is D or perhaps A. And wanted people to tell them how shitty B & C are.

This whole things just smacks of D trying to wrangle a way of ending up with a larger portion, through A. Probably when Ds children are older and looking at getting on the property ladder.

D could have sorted this. 150k a year, husband a teacher (so one amazing wage and one decent one) and 250k for a deposit. If D was wanted to do something nice, she could have done it herself.

Twenty twenty hindsight but on compromising your earning potential to care for parents you need to be clear beforehand that you want to be compensated as the family as a whole will benefit from your efforts and it’s unfair if you lose our. Everyone on board. This is what care would cost this is what I am saving us etc

"A is a woman. B and C are men. D is a woman (Consultant Doctor)"

Figures.

Not the greed, necessarily, but the caring burden taken for granted.

The will is the will but the recipients are free to re-distribute what they receive. This has been done in my family where two wealthy siblings gave up their share of the parental home to the non-wealthy sibing who had done the care for both parents.

In D's shoes I would talk to A about possibilities such as shared ownership and the Over 55's housebuying schemes - lots of good properties for sale only to O-55s. Then talk about buying one of those, putting in D's share of inheritance, on the understanding that the share of house bought with D's inheritance will be left to D's children.

A gets 1/2
B & C get 1/4 each
D gets nothing

all by mutual agreement

The will surely has to be honoured legally
D can then do whatever she likes with her share,
No one forced A to be a Carer if she didn’t do it other arrangement would have to have been made. Wonderful that she did and even nicer that rich sister wants to acknowledge and compensate her for it

Follow the will.

Was there nothing in the will to state that A could live in the property as long as they wished but when they left it had to be sold?

If not, that's a real shame but ultimately D could look towards buying a property for A if they were so inclined and then have a vested interest.

The will says equally. That tends to work best in families even if one person has married someone rich or won the lottery or worked harde ror whatever. Just divided it equally. once each person has their quarter they are free to hand it over to any sibilngs they want to.

(Wills can be changed after death if everyone who inherits agrees - here I don't advise them to do that as it will cause problems and arguments for the family. Better just to stick with the fair sensible will).

"This whole things just smacks of D trying to wrangle a way of ending up with a larger portion, through A. Probably when Ds children are older and looking at getting on the property ladder."

No, it doesn't. Why would A do anything other than leave her estate divided between her siblings? Or pass the siblings share to their children? Unless one of them gives A their share of the inheritance now, to be passed to their own kids in due course?

I suspect op is D or perhaps A. And wanted people to tell them how shitty B & C are.This whole things just smacks of D trying to wrangle a way of ending up with a larger portion, through A. Probably when Ds children are older and looking at getting on the property ladder.D could have sorted this. 150k a year, husband a teacher (so one amazing wage and one decent one) and 250k for a deposit. If D was wanted to do something nice, she could have done it herself.
All of the above

I am on the fringes of a similar situation in my own extended family and also think that the will should be split 4 ways. That is the only fair way.

There is always more to this kind of story than meets the eye. Yes, I can completely see why A began caring for a young sibling and ill mother once she left university. I can see why she might have done nothing else for five years, even for ten. But sufficient time has elapsed for that baby sibling to grow up, become a consultant physician and have her own family! I therefore believe that there were windows of time within that period when A could have explored options for work, volunteering or further study - or perhaps formed a relationship. Contacting social services would have put a care package in place, even if only for part of the week. But perhaps she didn't want to?

Unless someone is being held against their will, human beings don't do something for no reason. There must have been some kind of motivation, benefit or payoff for A in terms of keeping the status quo for nearly 30 years.

Couple of things:

I’m not the OP. Spoke to my Mum this morning...unless that was a call from the other side and she forgot to tell me something. My Dad is also alive and kicking (and working).

I agree, I am undoubtedly biased in my friends favour. My initial OP was meant to be as neutral as possible to gauge reactions.

In terms of filling in details, so many questions have been asked and not sure they are going to add more.

Ultimately, what has been useful is a lot of people think B and C’s position is reasonable (not everyone and D appreciates the kindness and understanding shown by many posters). It’s been useful for D to have that perspective.

D knows she can’t legally challenge will. She’s decided what’s she going to do (and is going to speak to sols on Monday to ask about deed of variation re her share).

To those of you saying she’s doing this to get more of the will, you could not be more wrong. D is a really good person.