Inheritance - what's fair?

[BrittleBean]

NC for this.

Relative's will stipulates that 65% of their estate be divided between three nieces / nephews and 35% between great nieces / nephews.

Niece 1 has three children
Nephew has one
Niece 2 has two

Is it reasonable that each great-niece / nephew receives an equal share or unreasonable that one family inherits a larger total share than the other two?

TIA

Asdf12345

It’s the choice of the person whose estate it is how it gets shared out. Nobody else’s views matter.

I think you'll find that has already been stated several times. What interests me is how people interpret 'fair', as it obviously differs from person to person.

@Thisismytimetoshine

Nope DC all born and families all finished, will made very recently.

My parents both inherited from their parents yet not only do I not get a penny despite my brother being far wealthier my DC get less 🤷🏽‍♀️ I also find it hurtful that think I would help my DC out perhaps???

There is a huge age gap between mine and DB children. After they arrived my DC suddenly started getting large gifts of money and DP tried to insist I put it a stocks and shares account like DB has - erm my eldest are adults the ship to save up like that for them has long sailed...

The only way it could be unfair is if the parents pocket the money themselves, so end up with more as they have more children. 'The family' isn't supposed to inherit, its supposed to be given to the named individuals.

Its supposed to be a nice gift. Its unrelated to any inheritance the parents might give to their children. Just accept it for what it is and let it go.

@Thelnebriati

Let what go? I haven't got a problem with any of it.

It seems the fairest way. But however money is split, someone's always unhappy.

I've recently heard of a case where the child in most need of money will get a bigger share than their siblings who have a bit of money already. Is that fair? I don't know. Depends on whether the needy one has boozed/gambled and the others haven't, maybe. What's fair, anyway? Life isn't fair. It all comes down to what the deceased wants to happen to their estate.

So you just posted on Mumsnet to see what everyone thought because...?

OP you have been wondering about what is fair. I have made wills for many years and can honestly say that in my experience over those many years there is a noticeable difference between the division chosen by parents and grandparents and the division chosen by other relatives. Parents and grandparents almost always want the division to be "per stirpes", ie so that each family "unit" gets the same share, whether that be to children or grandchildren. On the other hand non parents, such as a childless uncle or aunt, prefer the division to be per capita, ie an equal share to each individual. Your relative is doing what in my experience is what people in his/her position almost always do.

Family units are of little significance to people other than parents or grandparents. Speaking personally I am widowed and have no children. My brother has three children and my sister has two. My estate will be divided between my nieces and nephews equally because I see no logical reason why my brother's three should receive half between them and my sister's two the other half.

I had a discussion about this subject recently with a very wealthy childless bachelor client who was making a will. He has three brothers. One has five children, one has three and the other has two. He told me that he wanted to leave his estate to his nephews and nieces in equal shares. He mentioned that his mother had left her estate to her grandchildren, his nephews and nieces, to be divided per family unit but that he saw no reason other than to treat them equally. His will and his mother's will are exactly what my experience is of people in their respective positions.

So, to summarise, what you may regard as fair or unfair is not what somebody in your relative's family position regards as fair. Family units will not have the same significance to your relative.

Miranda

Yes, it's difficult. We have helped our children out financially from time to time. One is now in a much better position than the other but I still don't think I could give to the one in greater need and not to the other. We try to make sure they both get the same, over time. And who knows when circumstances will change, and their fortunes be reversed? But I have friends who disagree and would give to the child in need only.

That's interesting Jamestown, thank you.

I may be wrong about this but I think our parents have followed to same pattern - equal shares - for their grandchildren (the 6 great nieces and nephews) but from what you say that is unusual.

We have recently become grandparents ourselves and I guess at some point we will update our wills. I'm starting to think though some of these things in advance. I'd like to avoid creating difficulties for our family if at all possible. Everyone is close and relationships are good but I know money can do funny things to people, sadly.

What happens to the 65% left to nieces and nephew if they predecease the testator?

Does it 'stay in the family' or get added to the pool for the next generation down?

I find the split by individual much fairer than the by family split. Smaller number of siblings will probably have received 'more of everything ' material throughout their lives. I love the idea that for once they all get the same.

I think it’s the fairest way.

@Thelnebriati

So you just posted on Mumsnet to see what everyone thought because...?

Because I recently realised that what I took to be a reasonably straightforward and equitable way of distributing assets in a will (as my relative has arranged things) is actually more contentious than I thought.

The bottom line is that people can do whatever they want with their money but I - perhaps naively - thought that equal shares would seem 'fair' to most people and now know that's not the case.

There is a rift in my friend's family now because of a similar arrangement to the one I have described in my OP and I am trying to understand the other perspective.

I don't care what anybody considers 'fair.' I'm leaving mine to those I love best and I imagine a few who have been counting chickens will get a surprise.

Finally

Good question, I don't know about that. My hunch is that it would pass to the next generation. I had a life threatening illness shortly before the will was written (over two decades ago) and I suspect my relative will have given it careful thought.

Katy

I need to do other stuff now but thanks for all the responses, much appreciated.

It is perfectly fair for the estate to be divided equally between the nieces and nephews, irrespective of how many children they all have. The great nieces and nephews are of a different generation. It is actually really generous of the person making the will to think of the next generation at all, rather than leave it to their parents to distribute eventually.

@BrittleBean

Miranda

Yes, it's difficult. We have helped our children out financially from time to time. One is now in a much better position than the other but I still don't think I could give to the one in greater need and not to the other. We try to make sure they both get the same, over time. And who knows when circumstances will change, and their fortunes be reversed? But I have friends who disagree and would give to the child in need only.

I think this point about one child being more in need than another is interesting.

At the root of what's fair is in part the reasons why one child "needs" more money than another.

In the example if a child with disabilities and would be unable to earn an income I think it would be understandable to make greater financial provision for that child over others.

On the flip side where you have 2 siblings, one of whom had worked hard in education and in their career and the other simply been lazy (I.e. all things being equal had the same opportunities but squandered them) I don't think it's fair to penalise the former and reward the latter.

Somewhere in the middle you might have children who've both worked hard, but for reasons such as career choices (eg one is a nurse and the other a highly paid lawyer) I think it gets "interesting".

By splitting the money equally what might be "pocket money" to the lawyer could be life changing for the nurse.

The difficulty is of course circumstances can change but that said I think their is merit in discussing what's fair in those circumstances.

Fundamentally that's what's key I think. Being upfront about your intentions (and why) and giving all parties the chance to talk about it whilst you're still alive.

Ultimately you can leave your money to who you choose, but I think the potential for disagreement is so much less if everyone understands why you plan to leave what to whom and has had the opportunity to say how they feel about that.

Overall I think in the majority of cases an equal spilt by individual is always fairest, but I don't think that's true in every situation.

Sounds completely fair to me.

My parents will stipulates that me and my db get 40% each and each grandchild gets an equal share of 20% (4% each). Just because my db has 3 kids doesn't mean his kids should get less than mine. I think it's entirely fair to each have an equal share

I must say in discussions like these I'm glad I'm an only child - though as my DF mentions on occasion (with a twinkle in his eye) "there's nothing automatic about it DRM"

In all seriousness though my parents and I have talked about it quite openly.

Tbf I've made quite clear I'd be happier to see them spending far more on themselves (they've always been careful with money) whilst they are young/healthy enough to enjoy it and in recent years they've started to do this which is great (my DM couldn't get over flying first class for the first time in her 60's!! and DF has finally splashed out on his dream car).

They are in a fortunate position (a combination of prudence and inheritance) financially and the conversation we are having now is considering me not being the sole beneficiary but splitting with my DS for tax reasons (something I raised rather than them).

We're just trying to figure out a way of doing this that doesn't give DS (though a very sensible and non materialistic child) the run of what could be a very large sum of money before he's "ready".

Lots of food for thought there....what's the split, what age should he have access or should it be about what he wants so spend the money (at any age) on that could be managed by a trust....

@BrittleBean

That's interesting Jamestown, thank you.

I may be wrong about this but I think our parents have followed to same pattern - equal shares - for their grandchildren (the 6 great nieces and nephews) but from what you say that is unusual.

We have recently become grandparents ourselves and I guess at some point we will update our wills. I'm starting to think though some of these things in advance. I'd like to avoid creating difficulties for our family if at all possible. Everyone is close and relationships are good but I know money can do funny things to people, sadly.

I really disagree with leaving money to grandchildren.

Our DC will receive everything, as an equal split. They’re our children.

It will then be up to them how they distribute things, either whilst they are living or after their death.

What happens if more great-nieces/nephews are created? Won't seem so fair then.