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

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

Not necessarily.
In my family the youngest had far more support. Simply because there wasn't a younger one needing it more than them, but also more money spent on them growing up because by the time they got to secondary school, the oldest was independent and the middle one was getting there.

I have two adult sons. One has special needs but still works but will never earn much over minimum wage. The other has the ability to earn well if he continues to progress in his career.
I will be splitting everything equally which will give them both enough to buy a small property outright if they haven’t already done so or I havent already downsized and shared out the cash beforehand.

You never know what the further holds so it is only fair that it is 50/50 but I hope that I have bought my kids up well enough that they will always look out for each other once I am gone.

I agree that that's the fairest thing to do. Having the potential to earn lots doesn't automatically come without the need for added work, sacrifice and stress that somebody in a job with much less responsibility probably won't ever have.

Also, you can never know if the one with lower earning capacity might win the lottery/pools/major competition or marry a multi-millionaire. There's also the possibility that somebody less academically able and/or inclined might end up as a top-flight professional sportsperson or entertainer/performer and earn far more from that than a professor ever likely would or could.

Equal

Hi - your post has underlined for me the importance of making a will. I have four children, divorced, poor but no mortgage. Have adult disabled son who would be incapable of handling money (doesn’t even know what it’s for), however I’d hate to think of dying and leaving legal mess to my kids. Thanks for reminding how vital it is to get affairs in order. Rosie

@dottiedodah I think it was Daisy Goodwin, I remember the article as it really struck a chord.

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

Not necessarily.
In my family the youngest had far more support. Simply because there wasn't a younger one needing it more than them, but also more money spent on them growing up because by the time they got to secondary school, the oldest was independent and the middle one was getting there.

You're absolutely right - and just further proving that that can of worms is most definitely not for closing!

I was thinking from a time POV, i.e. your parents are alive and thus might be able to help you and give you more attention as they are present for more of your life than they are for your younger siblings.

Of course, they may equally have been struggling during your formative years and be more settled and much wealthier by the time your younger siblings are born and begin their formative years.

To take the very extreme scenario of the Radfords (of 20+ Kids & Counting fame), their earliest-born children might have them in their lives for twenty more years than the latest-born, but the youngest ones will never have younger ones competing for (and probably winning) the bulk of their parents' time - much less have to take on a great many quasi-parenting responsibilities for children of whom they are not actually the parents.

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.

That would have been crazy in the case of my grandparents

My father had cost them thousands in damage to their home in his rages over the years. His behaviour saw them having to step in and take in his children (obviously my mother bore responsibility too as she wasn't much better). He never paid a single penny he was meant to pay in child maintenance.

Yet in some places their decision to split 'his' share between the 4 of us wouldn't have been allowed

Ultimately its their choice. If siblings make the most of opportunities then and better themselves then good for them. And no I am not one of those, unfortunately.

YABU

Really up to the person who is making the will. However, if the money would really help the least well off in the family, then in the spirit of helping family members, generosity and understanding I would hope those better off would be okay. But I think inheritance brings out the very worst in families. Everyone needs to remember its the person who made the Will who has the right to do with their money and possessions as they see fit, it’s not a ‘right’.

I’m not voting OP, because there’s no way I’m calling you unreasonable. You sound absolutely lovely wanting your younger siblings to have more. Despite that I would say it should still be an equal split, because there are too many unknowns here. Circumstances might change, the other elder siblings may feel unloved, emotions can run high.

That leaves you with the problem of managing your DH if you want to help out the younger ones. I can see that might be awkward, but perhaps he’d be less opposed if you and the eldest agree to share the ‘helping out’. Ultimately inheritance is a bonus and a smaller bonus is still worth having.

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

Yes, definitely this. You shouldn't lose out twice just because your parent(s) dies young.

My sister and I stand to inherit everything between us from our (widowed) DGM, as both of her DSs and her DIL predeceased her, our DU sadly as a very young child. However, had he lived another 20 or so years and been in a position to have married and/or fathered children himself, we would most definitely expect/have expected his wife and/or child(ren) to have inherited their DH's/DF's share, irrespective of whether our own DF had pre-deceased his parents by far fewer years than his younger DB or indeed outlived them.

Interestingly enough, we know a (now-deceased) widowed DF/DGF who had three sons:
A - single and with no children;
B - married with two children;
C - married with two children.

When planning and discussing his will, the DF/DGF believed it fairest to split his estate 9 ways - 1/9 to each son, wife and grandchild.

Son A agreed with him, had no issues at all with this and was very happy to receive his 1/9 share.

Son B was happy with this, but thought it would be fairer to split it three ways between each family/unit, so that Son A wasn't penalised purely for never having married or had children.

Son C was very unhappy because, although his own family would receive 4/9 (i.e. more than a third) of the money, he protested that it should be split three ways, because he wanted 'his' whole third to himself rather than having to share more than 'his' third with his own wife and children.

Definitely equally. Its about perceptions of love. Bereavement is a difficult enough time without potentially (likely!?) creating divisions within the family because one sibling feels hard done by.
However, what i have done, is say to my children that come what may, i would expect them to support each other in times of need, which may include financially. That is hopefully my real legacy.
When you make a will you do not know what position your children will be in when you eventually pass. By then the addict may have found abstinence, but you will have permanently infantilised them by putting their money in a trust. Its not for you to judge them, its for you to love them (equally).
It is also easy to make incorrect assumptions about how well off some is. The seemingly wealthy sibling may in fact be a risk taker on the edge of bankruptcy.
So Always Equal! And if you have brought you're children up OK, they will know that they must share what they have spare.

Equal

Equal split but taking into account any money already given.

I think equal shares. I don’t think it’s fair to use individual success/situation to determine who is more worthy to get a higher proportion of the split.

Having said that, I think some tax planning around how a large sum of money is distributed may be worth while if any of the recipients is very young.

My sister and I each inherited £250k over 20 years ago (I’m not boasting, as I name-changed for this and will go back to using my usual username).

I was 22 and used the money as a large deposit on a flat in zone 1 in London. As a result, my investment multiplied with the growing property market. However, my sister was studying A-levels at the time and got immediate access to the money. She then dropped out of 2 different degree courses (both nearly finished), she then had the luxury of pursuing an arty career that had no salary attached. She took a £2k net “salary” each month from her inheritance, so lived quite well. The money was gone by the time she was 30! She was left with no formal degree qualification, no defined career path and no savings. So she had to start again from scratch. It’s a shame she didn’t have any advice at the time, or at least had the money in trust till she was 21. I think then she may have made better decisions.

Fair and equal are not the same thing.

I had a friend at school whose parents always gave the two sisters exactly the same amount of money throughout their lives even though their ages and circumstances were very different. It made me realise the truth of the above statement.

My younger brother of 4 children inherited nothing when DM died. I went with DM to solicitors to help her draw up the will to ensure older brother received majority share. This was to ensure that younger brother would receive money via older brother without it impacting his benefits as he’s disabled and unlikely to work. Older brother donated his portion also to younger brother so effectively younger brother received 50% of the inheritance. Myself and sister have also given money and support to younger brother since DM died.

I’m glad that as siblings, we could see the bigger picture and that our love for each other was the most important thing.

These threads demonstrate clearly why the country is in the state it’s in, too much selfishness and greed.

Was involved with a will where parent favoured one Offspring over others, thinking they needed it more. Caused irrevocable family breakup. Just do it equally. Message otherwise is I loved him or her more than you. Even if it’s just five quid each. Do it fairly.

I seem to know more unfair splits than fair ones.
This is typical:

My grandfather was proud of how much he would leave his 6 children.
Grandfather died first & gran moved in with her youngest son. 2 of uncle's sponging children persuaded Gran to fitter lots of money on them & their children. When Gran died, the other 4 living children (& my cousin, daughter of eldest who had died early) ... received nothing. We feel for the cousin, her original designated share, maybe £100k, could have been life changing

Surely this is for the parents with kids individually and discuss? I would assume the first and second children don’t need the money and want the best for their siblings so might be happy to receive less. Open communication is the way forward.

@CrisisMummy

The easiest way to think of Mutual Wills is as contracts rather than wills. While the will can be altered/revoked at any time after the death of the first person the contract cannot be.

A widow with a mutual will remarrying will have an effect on the validity of her will but not on the contract that stands behind it.

They are very complicated, I tend to steer clients away from them.

You get into constructive trusts and asset timelines and on and on and on.

Succession is a fabulous area of law. People are living far more complicated lives and deaths. Fascinating stuff.

YABU.

Inheritance should be seen as evenly distributing assets left over from an estate rather than a means tested benefit based on need at the time of distribution.

I agree with lljkk in that I know of more unfair ones than fair ones.

3 of them due to 2nd wives who married widowers, secondly, adult children drip-feeding negative vibes about their siblings to a remaining (and grieving) parent, convincing them to change their long-standing Will and family solicitor to a ''better one''.

One of my Cousins has done this to her own parents, borrowed a heap of money from them and had her Brother outed from the Will (supposedly on the basis that his wife is a nasty piece of work). I figure that is his business to deal with and detracts from her not paying them back. Creates drama where there doesn't have to be one.

Inheritance should be seen as evenly distributing assets left over from an estate rather than a means tested benefit based on need at the time of distribution.

Very well and succinctly put.

Not even just 'need at the time of distribution', mind - more like 'wildly-stabbed-at need 30-40 years before the time of distribution' in many cases.