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

The 4th child is an issue.
But I think the youngest child, who is just starting out as, of yet, had much less support than the older one. So I would want to give more to the youngest so that they would have the same chance and investment (even if only monetary) from me as a parent than the older ones have had.

This may seem crazy but perhaps talking to the children involved. I made it clear to my father when he was dying that he should look after his wife and step kids as they were young at the time still at primary school while I was all grown up with a house and a job.
That is what he did but because we talked about it I didn’t feel slighted by the will as I might have done if we hadn’t.

Definitely split equally. When my dad died he left the four of us equal shares of his estate (my sister and I are not his biological children, the two boys are).

I'm getting married soon, my Mother and Step Father gave me half of what they gave my sister for her wedding. For various reasons but I suspect one of them is because I earn a lot more than my sister. My sister, on the other hand lives in a 500k house all paid and her child has a 25k trust fund (given to her by my sister's in laws). I have a large mortgage >250k so a large chunk of my monthly wages go in mortgage payments. Totally my choice to buy a large property and I look at it as a supplement to my pension.

I said nothing to my mother about the fact she only gave me half of what she gave to my sister for her wedding as it's just not worth it (my mother is very awkward and there's a long back story).

I fully expect my mother to leave my sister more as she has a child (my mother's only grandchild) and have resigned myself to that fact. Doesn't make it fair but that's the way she is (am done with my mother tbh!)

It doesn't sit well with me, particularly since it's always me that's looked after my mother during hard times. If it comes to having to care for my mother in her old age I will definitely be sending her to my sister.

My dear father on the other hand was amazing, and had he not have died in an accident I would have looked after him until his dying day. Mainly because he was just the most amazing father ever and treated us all equally but mainly because I liked him more because he was supportive to us all.

Equal . Arguably in trust for the one with drug issues etc until they grow up .

* This may seem crazy but perhaps talking to the children involved.*

Please ignore this.

Equally. My mother married my very wealthy father. When my grandmother died she left everything to my mother’s sister on the ground my mother didn’t need it

She didn’t. Then. She sure as hell did 6 years later when everything fell apart.

I think the vast majority of the time it should be equal

Even when things are made equal people can still gripe at tiny differences. My grandparents cut out my father because his abuse of us (often drug fuelled, but sometimes not) meant we had to be taken in by them. So they split their estate between my Aunt, my Uncle and the 4 of us (1 third split between four).

When my Grandfather died I was 12 and my Nana was worried about what would happen to me if she died while I was still at school. Various others were buying houses at the time so she had her estate valued and she gave them all their inheritance at that point. All her savings, sold various things etc. All that was left was the small flat which was to be left to me (so I had a home as the plan was that they'd take turns babysitting as no-one was willing to take me in). Savings she built up after that were split equally.

Now despite the fact I did all of the care before she went into a home, despite the fact that if she'd been in the care home longer than a few weeks the flat would have been sold and I'd have got nothing, plus the fact I took no share of her savings the fact that I ended up with less than £1000 more than the rest of them (which I offered to even up) has meant that I've had years of sniping comments and bitterness.

Also the fact that I have kept the flat and it's now worth more than it was when I inherited it (both because of work done and a major infrastructure build in the area) also gets me grief. Even though their houses have also jumped in value to an even bigger degree (all bought by their deposits Nana gave them)

Any inequality causes problems. Even if you were just a kid that needed protecting because no-one wanted you

Myself and my dh are quite wealthy, my dbro is comfortable and lives mortgage free and my dsis is piss poor (but works really hard). I know my mum plans on leaving everything equally but (if there’s anything left - no idea what will happen re nursing homes etc) I would give my share of mums house to my sis and I hope my brother would do the same. It would be her only chance of ever owning a home.
It has to be split equally imo - the other option is a road to ruin.

I agree with @Lovemenorca

Things change so split equally as who knows what the future has to hold.

Irrespective of who has what, imo it would be an equal split.

Equal! Who knows what might happen, the wealthy ones might end up bankrupt.

Equal. My brother is,on a six figure salary and has a lovely house but when our parents die I wouldn't expect to get more than him. I thought most people divided equally.

I would probably go equal. Siblings can always help each other out if needed. It's not clear if extra cash would actually help the chaotic alcoholic or not.

You could make an argument for helping the younger ones more if the older ones have already had more help (e.g. with mortgage deposits, childcare, or whatever).

If you do decide to split unevenly I think it's worth discussing it first or at least leaving a letter for those who get less. I actually wouldn't mind if my parents left more to my sister (who has a socially useful job and therefore earns less than I do) - but I think I would be a bit hurt if they did it without explaining it as part of me might wonder if there was more to it than that or whatever.

My friend's Dad was left less than his (alcoholic, chaotic) sister and was upset about it (even though he was doing well and didn't really need the money) - for exactly this reason I think. There was no explanation so it wasn't clear if they were trying to meet what they saw as a need, or whether there was actually a preference there.

Equal and in a trust fund for anyone mental unstable or unable to manage money

Split equally. It's the only way to avoid endless arguments. Also, the youngest child is just starting out and could end up a millionaire. The only thing I would say is that the money for child 4 needs to be tied up in some way so they cannot just run through it.

YABU - equally. I'll be on the receiving end of an unequal inheritance and tbh it really hurts. My mum has already warned me that her house will be left to my youngest sibling - there are 3 of us. Her reasoning is that he doesn't own a property - me and my other sibling both have large mortgages that won't be paid off for years. My youngest sibling has lived a chaotic life and only worked when it suited,spent time in prison and basically been a pain in the arse. It's upsetting to think that despite working hard and struggling for years while bringing up the kids, I'm less important or unworthy somehow.

Why are you asking about your parents will?
Equal for all is the fair way as we love all our children

But I think the youngest child, who is just starting out as, of yet, had much less support than the older one.

OTOH, they will inherit their share at a younger age, so will potentially have more of their life left than the eldest in which to enjoy and make the most of the money.

As others have pointed out, parents will have given some help to the older children throughout their life. Money for a wedding, some help with caring young children etc etc. All of that is help, help that the you get child will not have if said parents were to die now (obviously will be different in let’s say 10 years time if the youngest child has got married too etc...).

If people want to make it truly equal and not just equal with the inheritance, then I think that should be taken into account too. Otherwise, it’s hypocritical imo.

So either money has been put for all 5 dcs when a ‘gift’ has been made (eg paying for the wedding) and inheritance is then split equally.
Or money hasn’t been given equally and then inheritance shouldn’t be given equally either.

FWIW in France, legally, they would look that carefully at what has been spend one each child and the one who got the least ‘help’ would get a bigger part if the inheritance. There has been many fights between siblings because if that.

It is the law in certain countries and for good reason

I've always found it amazing that in other countries you have to leave something to offspring you may hate and they may hate you, purely because you gave birth to them/are their dad.

You should be able to leave your money to whoever you choose, in whatever shares you choose. And I still think that if one child is a millionaire banker and the other a nurse, it makes far more sense to give the bigger share of the money to the nurse. Hopefully the banker sibling would tell their parents to do that anyway. You can leave specific items to the richer sibling, eg jewellery or a painting they like, or your car if they particularly like it so they don't have to feel forgotten.

There are advantages to being, or having, an only child.

Anything could happen in the future, the oldest may lose all his money, and the others do better or worse. It should always be equal.

Equal, because you love your kids equally. Also good for children to reflect that their parents don't really owe them anything once they are gone.

CanIHaveADrink

You're absolutely right and thus is opened the can of worms. Also, if we view the inheritance as a final act of showing love and your feelings for your children, it can't be ignored that your older children will have had you (and your love, kindness, favours and gifts) for more of their lives than the youngest ever will.

There are some benefits in having an only child (as well as the many stated potential disadvantages) - at least, as things stand (and likely will for ever), when we're gone, our DS will get all of our assets to himself as well as all the responsibility for organising the funeral and any unavoidable post-death affairs of the second of us to die.

Equal split. But a child should die, there ‘split’ should go to their family - partner/spouse/children.

Definitely, assuming your kids are adults when you die and, regardless of their wealth or lack of it, are no longer actually dependent on you financially, your bequests can only be seen as a last act of love and showing what they meant to you, rather than any attempt to provide for their calculated or anticipated needs.

Of course, this is made more difficult if one/some of your children have severe learning disabilities meaning that you might be effectively leaving a 40yo 'toddler'.

Even so, as a PP said, should your NT and able-bodied children be penalised for so being? Especially if, after your death, they end up taking over the duties of looking after their siblings who will never be able to live independently.