Inheritance split - what’s fair

[Taraohara]

Parents who are not Outwardly wealthy but saves carefully for their children.

They have 5 children oldest pretty well off . 6 figure salary. House around £1 million mark and London rental. No kids. 2nd eldest, stable job comfortably off. Old enough to have been able to get on property ladder . Nice house. 3rd Newly married One baby. Stable job. Small house . Unlikely to manage next house for considerable time due to wages. 4th chaotic . Drink / drugs issues lives with parents. Youngest is single just starting out in work . Lives with parents. No savings .

What’s best way to split inheritance?
Equal for all?
Or split according to how much each would need ?
Not a thread about If inheritance is to be expected or not .
One parent thinks it should be equal split as unequal may lead to problems down the line

YABU = split equally
YANBU = according to need

what are everyone's thoughts re: one 50+ sibling living in the parents' home (rent/bill free) - the other one independent - does the one 'residing' in the family home (not looking after parents or anything like that - quite the opposite actually :-( ) automatically become sitting tenant...

Ooh, that can be a minefield. I think a lot of it depends on the dynamic as to who owns/pays the rent/mortgage and the upkeep of the house. There's a big difference depending on whether it's effectively a grown-up child who never left home or the same grown-up child whose parent(s) live with them - particularly after one parent has died and it turns out more to be a co-dependent house-sharing dynamic with the surviving one rather than continuing the normal child-living-with-parents scenario into much later life.

I know of two people who didn't leave their family homes until late in life (in fact, one is now in his later years and still lives there, his parents long gone), but both assumed responsibility for the mortgages, bills and upkeep from their ageing widowed parents. That meant they had a head start on the property ladder but also provided free housing for their parents until old age/death, which seemed to work well for them and appears a fair deal to me.

However, in the scenario that you give, where you still live by choice as a 'child' in your 40s, 50s or older - maybe pay a token amount of board to your parents but you have your room in their house and your parents still do all of your cooking and washing for you, I think that's very different.

If you're an only child, no problem; but if you have siblings, I think you should either be prepared to sell and move out, buy them out or, if they're happy for it, pay a fair market rent for the half/two thirds/three quarters of their house that you're occupying.

None of this "But it's my home where I've always lived" as if you were still a dependent child and it never crossed your mind that this situation was very likely to happen when your elderly parents died. Even a rent-free life interest in the house would seem unfair, unless say, you had a serious disability which meant you'd never been able to move out; but even then, once your parents are dead and you're on your own, how is it any easier to live without them (with carers if necessary) in the house that had been theirs than in any other house?

Maybe if you had severe learning difficulties which meant you'd never been able to work, but could somebody with a mental age of a toddler really live alone in any house anyway?

I certainly don't agree with the idea that, because you've had a very easy ride for so long, that entitles you to continue it forever and those who made an effort to take responsibility for their own adult lives are penalised for it.

Equally but have the drug addicts share in a trust with trustees to avoid them binging and harming themselves

My first thought was equal may be best.
But. There is clearly inequality already. There may be lots of reasons why this has happened-luck, savvy, difficult life experiences, we don't know from the information given, do we? For example, the sibling with substance abuse issues, is this due to underlying conditions? If so, surely they should have more support than the already wealthy sibling. Equal sounds great, doesn't it, because it solves the reflection and other mental effort required to think about what is really fair.

Just a thought, my MIL kept a list of who had what amounts during her lifetime and once told me she would incorporate into her Will. This presumably meant she would level the playing field by extracting those amounts from her three sons so that the ones that had had less would get more upon her death. Sadly, she didn't do it and completely left my husband out of will but a good thought though I don't know quite how one could do it because over decades the value of money obviously changes. I must just add, what sort of mother/grandmother keeps a list like that, wow.

I think equal split. It's then down to individual siblings whether they choose to help out the ones less financially well off, but they shouldn't feel.any pressure either way. Parents should treat their children the same.

I would just talk to them. At the moment I'm almost in that situation. I'm much better off than my younger sister. We have a house bought and lots of savings (so if things carry on mortgage will be paid off in 5 years). My sister has no prospect of buying. If I inherited my parents estate the money would be nice to have but wouldn't make a huge amount of difference. My sister would be able to buy a house for herself and significantly improve her standard of living. I might be slightly hurt if I was left off the will without a word but if my parents spoke to me and asked what I thought I'd be absolutely fine with it.

(That said if they split it equally I'd probably just arrange for my sister to have my share anyway).

That's because you are kind and considerate Mini Egg but many siblings aren't and they'll just take their share and let their sibling continue to rent in a Grottsville.

All that said and despite I've already said on this thread I realised that I have a slightly inconsistent view because of what happened when DH's grandparents died. MIL had a sister but she died in the 1970s (she had two children) so MIL was only surviving child (and had four surviving children at the time). MIL did a lot of caring for her parents as they lived very close to her which sort of explains what happened but I still thought it was a bit strange.

Half the estate was left to MIL.

The other half was divided between the six grandchildren in equal shares. I found it a bit strange that the two offspring of the deceased daughter received such a tiny amount.

I would have left half to MIL and 1/4 to each of her two nieces and the other four, including DH, would get their share when MIL died. Or I would have left a bit more to MIL because she was caring for me, but the rest still in equal shares to the two nieces.

@BlaueLagune True and historically inheritances bring out the absolute worst in people.

Luckily I've got off easy so far. When my Grandmother died, despite never having been rich she did leave a property in London which was now very valuable. My aunt who is by far the least well off of the siblings had done most of the caring (and had had my Grandma living with her). Got most of the money on the insistence of my dad and his brother.

In my situation 2 sisters from fathers first marriage, then brother and sister from fathers second marriage.
The second marriage started a very successful business together, should the inheritance be split equally between all 4 children or should the 2 of the second marriage get a majority?
2 sisters from first marriage will also inherit from their mother?

MIL did a lot of caring for her parents as they lived very close to her which sort of explains what happened but I still thought it was a bit strange.

Half the estate was left to MIL.

The other half was divided between the six grandchildren in equal shares. I found it a bit strange that the two offspring of the deceased daughter received such a tiny amount.

I would have left half to MIL and 1/4 to each of her two nieces and the other four, including DH, would get their share when MIL died. Or I would have left a bit more to MIL because she was caring for me, but the rest still in equal shares to the two nieces.

I completely agree with you - the deceased daughter's children should have got her share and then the children of the still-living daughter would stand to inherit when their own mother eventually. Otherwise, you're effectively punishing them again for having lost their mother at a very young age.

Your MIL was very kind to have done all of the caring for their parents, but it's hardly like her already-deceased sister could possibly have done any of it herself.

when their own mother eventually

eventually died.

Many wills stand for a long time (often decades) before being executed. Unfortunately most wills are written to address the situation immediately in front of the testator.

By the time a will is executed the situation of the beneficiaries could have changed many times over.

The second marriage started a very successful business together, should the inheritance be split equally between all 4 children or should the 2 of the second marriage get a majority? 2 sisters from first marriage will also inherit from their mother

The parents should divide their assets in half. Then the father divides his share evenly between his four children, and the mother divides her half between her two children.

This means the 2 children from the first marriage get 1/8th each, plus whatever they happen to inherit from their own mother, and the 2 children from the second marriage get 3/8ths each.

Thank you caperberries

webuiltthisbuffetonsausagerolls - wow - wish i had thought of that name....thanks for very extensive thoughts - I am not the one living rent/bill free - it's my older sibling who chooses to work minimal hours ("less stress") so can't "afford" to finance own life...he has more qualifications than me (and so could get a well paid job if he chose to) and is divorced with adult kids....i am sure (god forbid) when my folks depart their mortal coils there will be no reference to all that they have done for him financially...i could never have freeloaded like this

shinyhappypeeps - Thank you! (there's another MN user who put a wittier spin on it, though )

I gathered that you weren't the one in question. Sad to say, it sounds like your brother has carefully thought through his options and chosen the path of least effort.

For him, at least - not for others, especially not your parents who would quite probably have enjoyed living together on their own in their later years and having the opportunity to focus their lives on each other now that their children have grown up and (should be) independent.

When that time does eventually come, the chances of his acknowledging that he's had it good for so long but now it's time to take your equal inheritances and make your own way in life are infinitesimal, bordering on zero. Undoubtedly, he'll paint himself as the victim and the one deserving of everybody's pity.

Surely his heartless sister wouldn't be so selfish and greedy as to think she could just turf him out of his own home, where he's lived most of his life, supporting their parents [by letting them cook, clean and pay all his bills for him] - especially when she's been so lucky in her own life and already has her own home. The house shouldn't be considered as part of your parent's assets - now that they're gone, it clearly passes straight to him as the last resident standing!! Everything else should be split equally, of course; although, thinking about it, you are much better off than him [sans entirely free house], so maybe that should go a lot more in his favour too....

He might even genuinely think this way himself, after so long. What was that old quote about 'the harder I work, the luckier I get' ?!

In fact, shinyhappypeeps, yes, he is already coining it in, and likely will do for ever, but it's all come at the expense of your poor put-upon parents - it's not like he found a magic money mine and simply helped himself like anybody else could have done.

We're in a kind of similar position - not so much financially, but concerning childcare. My MIL has had to put her retirement on hold for over a decade (and likely for a good few years yet), to do unpaid full-time (and school runs and wraparound, when they reach that age) for my SIL and BIL. She originally offered to help with the first one for a few months whilst they put something in place and....

Obviously, she loves the kids very dearly and gets great pleasure from seeing them, as she does our child, whom we've always looked after ourselves (losing out on significant earning potential to do so) but she just looks so permanently exhausted and has lost a lot of her former joie de vivre. I'd never suggest that she favours our child (which I would never want her to do as our DNs are wonderful kids and they didn't choose the situation), but she does see him in a different way - as an accompanied visitor who brings joy rather than as a daily full-time responsibility.

I think that, sometimes, you can derive a lot of happiness and peace from the knowledge that, after your folks have gone, once you became an adult, you started to break out on your own, embrace adult independence and had many happy years with them as an equal fellow adult.

You yourself are completely innocent of robbing them of money, their own time, energy and peace of mind and of causing them a lot of stress, effort and likely unhappiness in their later years. It's sad that somebody did do all of this to them, but you will be able to look back with happy memories at how you treated, helped, loved and supported them as part of a lovely adult co-relationship and hold your head up high for the rest of your life.

thank you WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll - that is really how I feel about my dear parents when I think about it - I know they will not be around for ever and like most daughters once I had my own DC I really appreciate(d) what they have done for me both as a child and adult.....i love them unconditionally and I suppose I would do the same for any one of my DC who needed a roof over their heads...

Does anybody have any tips for dealing with post unfair split feelings. 3/4 to sibling and 1/4 to me. It has been a hell of year tbh.

@hifolks

If you are still reading I’m some for your situation. I know I had thought and unequal split was fair but reading these comments I think maybe not . I wonder if your parents thought you had more or needed less, or maybe that was the case at time of will writing. It sounds like it must sting thought and so my sympathies are for you

Thanks Taraohara, it's been so awful and in the midst of it I have been wrongly accused of saying parent has not got capacity. It's a total minefield.

Anyone out there, please be on top of your paper work, POA and so on.

Equal, there’ll only be problems later down the line otherwise

Equal is the best way

My dad had 5 kids and did an uneven split which i really disagreed with (the two closest to him got the most). For me equal is fair

Always equal , I'd be pissed off if my siblings got more just cause I'm already on property ladder and I'd split it equal to my children too regardless of financial situation.