Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Will/inheritance question.

119 replies

rattusrattus20 · 21/08/2020 13:20

I’ve seen similar questions posted on here before but wanted to get some clear views from a simple question free of non-core details.

Imagine a childless, married couple. Married for pretty much all their adult lives. One earns more than the other. Spouse A has 1 living sibling, spouse B has 2 living siblings. They want to write a will that, in the event they both pass away at the same time, leaves everything to their siblings. Which of the following do posters think would be the best and fairest split between siblings?

Thanks in advance.

(a) 50: 50 between A’s sibling and B’s siblings, so A’s sibling gets 50% and each of B’s siblings get 25% each. This split could be characterised as ‘fair’ in the sense that each side of the family gets the same/A’s sibling isn’t ‘penalised’ as a result of B coming from a larger family.

(b) An equal (33:33:33) split between all siblings. This split could be characterised as ‘fair’ in the sense that each sibling gets the same/B’s siblings aren’t penalised as a result of their coming from a larger family.

(c) Something else, focusing in particular on how much money each of Spouse A and Spouse B earned during the marriage.

(d) Something else, focusing in particular on how needy/deserving/close/etc the three sibling are.

OP posts:
ChicCroissant · 21/08/2020 13:22

I think B, but the fact that you've mentioned unequal earnings makes me think you want C.

ClaraJude · 21/08/2020 13:22

There’s not really any specifically right or wrong choice but to my mind the fairest option is to give each sibling the same. Nobody is being penalised of they all have the same amount.

FreeButtonBee · 21/08/2020 13:22

B. We have done this if me,DH and all our DC die at the same time (so unlikely but possible) DH’s brother is better off, I have 3 brothers. It didn’t seem fair that my 3 younger less well off brothers should have to share 50% and DBIL got 50%. It’s all shared wealth so should be shared between them all equally

BluebellsGreenbells · 21/08/2020 13:23

it’s not that straight forward.

First you protect each other so will each other the whole property.

If you are joint tenants you can will your share to anyone you like in the event of your death with current partner allowed to stay until they die - he can do the same

If you aren’t joint tenants the surviving person could gift the whole lots to the cats home.

You need a solicitor

TeenPlusTwenties · 21/08/2020 13:24

If A with 1 sibling has been higher earner, then option (a)
If B with 2 siblings has been higher earner, then option (b)

Ijumpedtheshark · 21/08/2020 13:24

A or B.

Whatthebloodyell · 21/08/2020 13:29

A or B.

Original poster
rattusrattus20 · 21/08/2020 13:29

@FreeButtonBee - thanks.

Two questions though:

(i) you have brought up the relative needs of siblings, so really you're saying a bit of my (A) and a bit of my (D), aren't you?

(ii) if you'd had say 99 siblings [extreme I know], would (B) still have been fair in your opinion - DH's sibling immediately gets his inheritance watered down to next-to-nothing as a result of his DB marrying into a huge family?

OP posts:
Original poster
rattusrattus20 · 21/08/2020 13:30

@FreeButtonBee - apologies, I meant "a bit of my B and a bit of my D.

OP posts:
KitKat1985 · 21/08/2020 13:30

B I think.

Although the chances of both partners passing away at the same time is very unlikely.

lyralalala · 21/08/2020 13:34

Given that it's such an unlikely event I'd split equally between the three siblings. Especially if they are equally close (or not) all all three.

BaconsLaw · 21/08/2020 13:34

My middle brother is quite a high earner and is married without kids (no, I'm not AT ALL jealous...)

They're leaving everything to be split equally between their nieces and nephews.

WaltzingBetty · 21/08/2020 13:34

B

It's all 'family money' and joint so it should al be divided equally from one pot.

Original poster
rattusrattus20 · 21/08/2020 13:35

@BluebellsGreenbells @KitKat1985 - I think you're right, this isn't the most important question at all. A bigger priority should be trying to draw up something that decides what if anything will happen when one partner outlives the other...

OP posts:
LionLily · 21/08/2020 13:37

Not sure that it's actually possible for both of the couple to die at the same time. Morbid I know, but even if they both died in an explosion or plane crash, I think the law defaults to the older one dying first, so the younger one inherits.
To achieve B the couple's wills would need to leave everything to the other in trust, or just for lifetime enjoyment to be shared out equally between siblings on their death.

milienhaus · 21/08/2020 13:37

No one reasonably expects to inherit from their siblings so talking about “diluting inheritance” is a bit strange. I think B is fairest.

NailsNeedDoing · 21/08/2020 13:39

B.

Or A if you prefer. Either of those would be fine, it’s entirely up to you.

If you go down the road of either C or D you’re effectively making judgements on your family, and leaving a gift of inheritance is really not about that. It’s a show of your love, not a show of how deserving you think they are. It’s just a horrible way of doing things. Also, if you did it that way, you might find you have to keep constantly changing your will as their life circumstances change and they become more or less deserving in your opinion.

DingDongDenny · 21/08/2020 13:40

We were in a similar position and we went for A - only we set it up so our neices and nephews would inherit, rather than siblings. Despite there being 3 on one side and 2 on the other we kept it 50/50

Wingedharpy · 21/08/2020 13:41

I'd go for option e - which you haven't mentioned!
Divide all money equally between the children of all siblings (siblings without children can have a share as if they were a child, if you get my drift).

TeenPlusTwenties · 21/08/2020 13:42

Lion You can write wills that have a 'survive for 30 days clause' or similar to cover the assumed older person dying first.

minnieok · 21/08/2020 13:45

It does depend on circumstances eg if one sibling has reduced earning capacity because they quit work for 10 years to care for your aging parents then willing them more seems the right thing to do. But after such a long marriage, if relationships with both sides are good then I would go for 1/3 splits personally especially if they have similar assets, they are equals in my eyes, no his side/my side. My sil is my sister as far as I'm concerned even though I'm no longer with her brother even!

MsSquiz · 21/08/2020 13:45

Even if you both "pass away at the same time" it is highly likely that they would determine who died first and it is the 2nd person's will which comes into force.

I know this because I asked our solicitor while discussing our will as DH's will and mine differed hugely

Penguinnn · 21/08/2020 13:45

Split is 3 ways.

user1493413286 · 21/08/2020 13:47

Equally between all 3.

Horizons83 · 21/08/2020 13:47

I know its not what the OP is asking but it is possible to draft a will so that if the couple die close together the originals intentions prevail. It’s called a survivorship clause.

It’s a tough one OP. My gut says A but I don’t know. I have contributed much more financially to this marriage my husband has, and and as much as I like his family I would be a bit irked if they ended up with more. Yes I know marriage is a pooled resource but why should my DH’s sister benefit financially from my mum’s death (who died before I had even met her?).