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

I think you have to look at it that, although you're hopefully well into adulthood by the time you come to inherit, the reason that most people leave money to their offspring is because you were once their children - people they chose to bring into the world and support financially.

Obviously, they shouldn't normally need to support you financially when you are adults (assuming good health and no other specific issues), but I personally see the handing on of their worldly assets as a kind of final moral hark back to this principle. It's a final gift and expression of their love for you rather than their meeting any kind of need.

Of course, the dynamic could change if people die young with some children well into adulthood and others still actual juveniles and very much dependent on them.

IAmNotAWitch

I 100% agree on the charity principle - way better if you can express your wishes to your children rather than put it in your will. Even if you only give 1%, that gives them an interest in and often a desire to interfere and dictate on timescales, pricing and timings for your children dealing with your affairs at an already very difficult time.

From the moment you notify the charity that they're in your will, they consider the money theirs, put you on their projected balance sheet and monitor your personal circumstances as your remaining alive is effectively an obstacle to them realising their 'investment'.

I'm sure some of them will send you a Christmas card every year - firstly to keep you sweet and discourage you from changing your will, but mainly in the hope that, one year, it will come back to them as undeliverable or 'addressee deceased' and enable them to strike (or at least make enquiries) and prepare to get the loot.

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.

As a parent, I really dislike the attitude that people who choose to and are able to have children are somehow doing it altruistically for the good of society and are thus making more noble use of their life than those who don't have children for whatever reason(s).

The only 'wrong' choice is people who don't want children but then go on to have them anyway and mess up the kids' lives by treating them as a burden and a gross inconvenience.

If an inheritance is considered a final expression of love and how much your children have meant to you, can you imagine the pain of being effectively told that your parents loved you less and considered your life largely wasted, just because you chose not to or couldn't have kids - or even preferred to stay single or never met the right person? That's not how caring families express love.

Does anybody remember the CF thread from some time back which mentioned the eldest of five adult children who had made plans for her (not very much) younger siblings to immediately hand over their shares of their inheritance from their joint parents straight to her?

Her plan was that it would all be 'fair' as she would eventually leave the money to them in her will!!

So assuming that she hadn't already spent it by then or had any debts or children to lay claim to it, her idea was that they could simply give her lifelong enjoyment of their inheritance and then, IF she died before all of her similarly-aged siblings, possibly get some of it back (I'm guessing amounts not adjusted for inflation) when they could all be in their 90s and expecting to be passing it straight on very shortly themselves!!

Doesnt matter what any of the kids make.
Equal is the only fair way.

Equal split. Who knows what may happen between now and then - the poor one could win the lottery and the rich one could lose everything. Leave it equally and then everyone is on a level playing field.

eqaul.but depending how close you are the drink and drug addict might need thinking of.but that needs discussion.
i have know one who drank the house she was left and once recovered had nothing and lived to regret it.
another who her parents left it in trust until she got some help.she bloody hated them for this.until few years later once recovered she had never been more grateful.
so i dont know whther there is a best way with this.but depends on how yo uare as a family i suppose.and how you can talk to eacohter about this.how close they are to leaving her money that could be drunk or snorted and possibly killing them depending how sick they are.
this is the only tough bit for me.but on princicpal it should be eqaul.

Unless there is strong reason to do otherwise, equal and to direct descendants. My DM is tying herself in knots trying to do the 'right' thing.

As it stands, her fairly modest estate is going to end up in a trust fund which will cost a fortune to run and will benefit no one.

Well, 1x dgp, will divided between three sisters 50%, 25%, 25%, in recognition of effort provided in care. 1 x d great aunt as above with the 50% going to a different sister. The 3rd sister receiving 2 x 25% lives across the country so unable to assist with care.

Other dgp divided will equally. Mostly fine except my parent received an equal share despite living across the world and not assisting with care. (We are talking ‘00’s, not ‘000’s). This caused a few ructions as one of the siblings had their own financial troubles.

My parent has divided the will equally but I will be doing the lions share/all care. One sib is delicate mentally so it’s hard to know what the future holds though he is managing. However, with the only grandchild, we are receiving assistance with school fees which we are keeping for extras/University or whatever. Dsibs are fine with this.

1 x IL provided full time, live in care for years. Received occasional, brief respite from sibling who lived a long way away. Will divided equally.

So many variables.

Equally whatever the circumstances, even disability. It’s not fair to penalise a child for being able bodied.

Thanks to pp for info on my query about mutual wills!

Equal split right along the line for me .Also in case of son with Drink/Drug problem .If he is on benefits ,these would stop in the case of an inheritance anyway. My own children are in very different circumstances too ,but for me I would not want to split any thing we leave any other way.

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

I disagree with this. There have been threads in MN where infertile couples have received less due to them not having kids. That seems hurtful.

"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."

Oh please!! People choose to have kids and they should be able to support them. I should get more money because I've had a child? Ridiculous.

If the parents have some liquid assets maybe they could help the less well off children now. I don't believe everything should be equal - if some kids are loaded and the others aren't, it seems a bit daft to me to give all the same when some kids don't need it and it would make a massive difference to others. But if they give away some money while they are alive, it's easier to provide help to the ones that might need it more, while avoiding IHT, assuming they live for 7 years. And they could give annual cash gifts too up to the taxable limit.

Equal split. I have a couple of friends whose fathers have died recently and have more to much younger siblings. It has had a terrible effect on both of them as they feel they were less important to their father.

There was a famous writer not long ago, Maybe Daisy Someone, who wrote "Victoria" not sure .Anyway her Mother died ,and left a large sum to her 3 half siblings.but nothing to her, as she was a TV Screenwriter and her siblings were in HA homes .Explained to Daisy why and she understood, but still would have liked to have been "thought " of I think .

Equal is not necessarily fair imo.

We(the oldest siblings) have had much longer with our parents and also much more support than the youngest.
And I do not see why nerd shouldn't be considered (and no, that would definitely not benefit me).

I (and my dsis and maybe also db? Well, maybe not db1) would actually expect to receive less than db2.

But it's always difficult when it comes to land/houses, family business(es) etc. Splliting these equally is often simply not the best choice...

It has to be equal.

You can’t predict the future, it isn’t the parents job to act as some sort of financial compensation scheme or arbitrate over who they think ‘deserves’ more. If it is on ‘need’ leave the whole lot to a food bank or Women’s Aid.

The offspring with children will probably get more during the lifetime anyway: birthday money etc.

My Uncle was seriously minted: he gave his share of their inheritance to my Mum because she was poor and had undertaken years of care. She would have been intensely uncomfortable if her parents had made that decision for him, though.

When DH and I were writing our wills with a solicitor we were given the option that the wills could be written so that when one spouse died the other could not then change their will. Can’t remember the legal term but I’m sure someone will.

This sounds terribly controlling

@caperberries I disagree, I hope this is what my dad and step mother have done, otherwise Dbro and I will be disinherited in favour of step mothers children and the money from our family home that he got half of in my parents split and his army pension that he accrued when we were small children will be going to people he didn't even know at the time.

There's many instances where making sure your will can't be changed after your death is a good thing.

If the youngest is only just starting out I’m assuming your parents aren’t especially old? A lot can change in 10-20 years for everyone concerned.

Split it equally. Nobody can predict precisely how each individual will spend their inheritance. Or, indeed if there will be much to inherit after care fees.

"I disagree, I hope this is what my dad and step mother have done, otherwise Dbro and I will be disinherited in favour of step mothers children and the money from our family home that he got half of in my parents split and his army pension that he accrued when we were small children will be going to people he didn't even know at the time."

If he wants to make specific bequests to his dc, he can do that in his own will. His DW's will is her own business, if her predeceases her, her circumstances may change in the future, anything could happen. People should have autonomy over their own will IMHO.

Well parents need to talk to the children to see what they think. Hopefully siblings will agree a fair split and safeguard for vulnerable sibling.

If the 'children' then want to help siblings out according to their needs, they can chose to do that with their inheritance

In a lot of cases they won't which is why the parents need to spread it more fairly. In one case I know of a guy lived at home with his parents to care for them. He was a bus driver so didn't earn well but did have a small flat he was able to move into when they both died. His two siblings saw their parents about once a year and were wealthy.

His parents made wills leaving their house to him because he'd cared for them and the siblings were much better off. But when his dad died, his mum changed the will to split it equally and the siblings couldn't wait to sell the house and throw him out to get their share.