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

Equal spilt can't be any other way regardless if some of the siblings are better off. If you take out the money element for a moment, it would be like the parents favour X sibling over Y sibling (yes Y sibling is better off) but people read far more into this when being left out and it's not worth the family fall out.

My brother and I received equal from parents. He is much better off financially than me but that is not relevant. It was right that we received the same.
There are however times when unequal split is reasonable as mentioned by some posters here e.g. disability.

From a distance I would say equal but please do talk with all DCs.

My DM is possibly doing something silly (egged on by DB) but insists on being coy about the whole thing.

Our wills are mirror wills leaving everything equally. As pps have said, a lot can change between writing a will and it having to be executed.

Of course it should be equal. it is the fairest thing to do.
~But I do get the dilemma about giving the drug-using child a wad of cash. By the time the last parent dies, the drug-user might have sorted their life out.
do we know how long it is til the inheritance is likely to be paid out? I mean (sorry to be tactless, but is anyone terminally ill yet, and putting affairs in order?).

Equal - why “punish” the successful children. It’s not fair.

equal
If wealthier offspring feels another sibling needs it more they can always choose to waive their share - but whether it's a much needed house deposit or a luxury holiday that the inheritance is spent on, it's a memory of departed parents, and leaving one child out would be hurtful.

My parents had made a joint will, splitting equally between three of us.
My dad wanted to amend it and drop my brother out; he'd always sponged off my mum to a vast extent when she was alive, and didn't bother to see my dad once in the last five years of his life when he (Dad) needed a great deal of support from my sister and I.
My Father didn't make any changes to honour my Mothers' wishes.

Equal split. Anything else will leave a lifetime of bitterness and resentment.

in some ways I think it depends and I might weight it towards youngest and would consider trust fund for the black sheep to ensure they don't wipe themselves out with it etc.

Why weight - well the older children have had benefit of help before youngest. But also I might consider giving that help immediately if I could

Equal every time. It is the only fair way. My DM was fanatical about never showing favouritism to us three girls, so much so that at Christmas she would have a little book with amounts written down and even if it was a couple of quid difference she would level them up.

When she passed away, our financial situations were very different, me being the least affluent. It never once occurred to me that I should get a bigger share.

Growing up we had very little material wise but all the love in the world and we were taught that we had to work for everything that we had.

The only reason they had a little bit to leave us was that my DDad died of an industrial disease which killed him and DM got a pittance in compensation.

Yes. I would be thinking about a trust or something for the child with addiction problems.

I was recently involved in a case where a young man with addiction problems found himself with a couple of million cash. He died broke 2 years later.

Equal doesn't necessarily mean the same.

Equal is the only fair way.

Equal, but I don't think we're getting the full story here.

You mentioned that the two youngest live with the parents, will the parents house be the bulk of the estate? Is so, will the youngest two then be made homeless by a sale? That sounds like you would be making a drug addict homeless then giving them a pile of cash.

The only consideration I might make would be to make a slight equalisation given the age difference. Younger Pele have less chance of house ownership etc.

Equal.... My 'not so D' sister is insisting its all hers for her own reasons and saying that I am not 'entitled' despite us having the same (married) parents...

Our parents died intestate.. Please make an equal will and if there is anything left in your estate it will be so much easier for your DCs without having to get lawyers involved ..

One year on, we are now having to go to court to even get the estate administered, and she will still contest it, no doubt..

Anything but equal will lead to problems in most families. I would set aside the money for the child with drug problems in a Trust.

The only time I would change this is if a child had some sort of SEN and would need long term support or if I had given some of the children money already ie wedding, university fees, house deposite. Then, I would give extra to those who hadn't been helped but have this made clear in my will.

@KenDodd yes that’s a good point. They have more than 1 property. But 2 living in family house

YABU - equal

I would always say split equally. Except... I have 3 DSes. DS1 has just started a well paid graduate job, DS3 will go to university and get a decent job. DS2 has ASD, struggles with college and will live at home with me for the foreseeable. He will get more money from me than his brothers otherwise he probably won’t have anywhere to live, nor the means to pay rent. I will make sure that whatever I leave them will be beneficial to them all. DS1 and 3 shouldn’t have to look after their sibling or have him living with them if they don’t want. They should be free to lead their own lives but keep a weather eye out on DS2. They know this, I’ve already told DS1 and 3.

The only time I wouldn’t do an equal split would be if one child was disabled and needed long term financial stability. I think if they’re all decent people and get on the the wealthiest will look after the least wealthy and I’d certainly make it clear to all that that’s what I’d expect them to do,

You can't treat them all equally. The 4th one with drink and drug problems would possibly end up killing themselves if given such a large sum of money. Their share should be put in to trust at least.

Will be unpopular but based on the information I would not do an equal split. Children with kids get priority they a) need it more b) they will actually continue the family line c) they are making a sacrifices to keep society going.

By the sounds of it the eldest one does not really need the help. They should get some but maybe not as much.

Might sound harsh but might not leave much if anything to the youngest. They make bad lifestyle choices and no way would I want to see family money being squandered like that or family heirlooms being sold due to their irresponsibility.

Split equally.

Equal split.

The only exception would be a dependent that has significant health or developmental issues to the point that he/she needs to be supported by parents for life. In which case, I would say that any inheritance split should only be after a trust is established that is sufficient to support said offspring after the parents die.

Equal.

It causes problems between the beneficiaries if there's an unequal split.