Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

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.

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

OP posts:

WendyHoused · 21/08/2020 13:47

I'd do what Winged suggests and leave it to the next generation.

Lockdownlumpy · 21/08/2020 13:52

What if the siblings die first?

theemmadilemma · 21/08/2020 13:56

damnthatanxiety · 21/08/2020 13:56

equal to each sibling as now that they are all adults, it is not about one side or the other. It is about 3 separate independent adults who are I assumed, equally loved.

Whenwillthisbeover · 21/08/2020 14:00

Mmmmm, so we aren’t childless but assume DH, adult DC and I went down together and we had no loving parents left ours is split 50/50 with my half being split between my two brothers and DHs being split between his two brothers, sister and niece! We decided on half each with each of us deciding who got our half.

DH earns tonnes more than me but I’ve worked a lot bloody harder 😂

TwentySixPointTwo · 21/08/2020 14:02

B - I would consider myself and my partner as a single entity and the money as coming from a single pot. I'd then treat that entity has having 3 siblings so split the money into 3 equal portions.

I'd also tell them all that's what I'd done. Nothing worse than surprise wills causing arguments over money when the deceased can longer explain themselves.

unmarkedbythat · 21/08/2020 14:03

A or B, leaning towards A.

SunshineCake · 21/08/2020 14:04

What is the point of marriage if it is relevant who earned what?

I haven't worked for 20 out of the 21 years I have been married except for about a week. DH has earned all the money and has supported himself, me, three children and several animals. I earned a few hundred in that week and done everything a SAHFTM does which has been more than my friend as my children needed many more appointments than the average kid. I have certainly worked!

Dh values what I do very much as he knows he wouldn't be the big shot he is at work if I haven't been doing all the kids stuff.

I think it is so complex both sides should write what they think is fair then see a solicitor for legal advice and set a happy compromise.

BillysMyBunny · 21/08/2020 14:04

B - split it equally.

Thelittleweasel · 21/08/2020 14:05

It is essential to have a solicitor. If two persons die together and it is not possible to establish which died first there is a "rule" that the eldest died first. This will have the effect that any jointly owned assets pass to the other by survivourship. Solicitors will usually add a clause that 28 days shall pass for the two not to be considered as dying together

@rattusrattus20

BacklashStarts · 21/08/2020 14:06

A. Not C as it’s a marriage so it’s ours not your and mine.

If it’s a bone of contention leave it to a cat shelter it’s not like the siblings are going to hugely out live you.

Or D - split between nephews and nieces if there are any.

Plexie · 21/08/2020 14:07

Option (e): divide into quarters. One quarter to each sibling and the last quarter to charity.

Yes, two people can die at the same time, eg car crash. There is usually a clause when leaving inheritance to someone very close to you (eg who you live with) that they will only inherit if they survive you by 24 hours. Not ideal in a situation where both are involved in a crash but one survives in hospital for more than 24 hours, as the longer surviving person will inherit and then have it split according to their will. But not all eventualities can be covered.

BacklashStarts · 21/08/2020 14:08

Anyway, you’d need to die simultaneously for this to matter. Really you should will to each other and the survivor decides.

Knittingnanny · 21/08/2020 14:08

I’ve got 3 adult sons, 2 are wealthy , one is not. I shall still leave them a third each in theory but...,,
Mine is complicated because I’m remarried with 2 adult step children though so lots to think about
That’s reminded me we need to make wills!

ErinBrockovich · 21/08/2020 14:09

I would go for option A on the basis neither side should receive ‘more’ based on number of siblings (which is largely irrelevant). Rather each side of the estate receives an equal share - half.

To try and split the estate based on who earned what seems far too complicated.

BluePaintSample · 21/08/2020 14:09

So hypothetically if the married couple want to split the money different ways, if one dies first then the other one can change their will very easily to reflect their true wishes. A solicitor is needed to protect the wishes of whoever dies first (second person could remarry leaving everything to new spouse).

I personally think B. Split everything evenly between the siblings. It doesn't matter who earns what, who has more siblings than the other. Just a 3 way split.

I will give you an actual situation (not my family but my friend's) the Dad dies in his 80s, leaves everything to his wife also in her 80s, but she realises that their will is old and doesn't reflect their circumstances so starts to voice her shall I do this or shall I do that to my friend, her daughter.

The Mum had 4 children, one of whom died from cancer in their 40s, she had 2 children with her husband, the widower remarried years later. So now their are 3 children, and not only grandchildren but great grandchildren.

The estate will be sizeable, like £1 million+. She decides she will give each grandchild/great grandchild a set amount, say £20k each. Then whatever is left gets divided between the 3 remaining siblings. Or does she divide the bulk between her 4 children, as one is now deceased that means that a huge chunk of money gets left to the 2 grandchildren instead. So whilst the rest of the grandchildren get £20k they get a hundred thousand+ each?

She kept going back and forth on this, it was very hard on my friend who was her sounding board as how to you say it may cause issues leaving some grandchildren a hundred thousand and the others £20k because it sounds like she is saying you are watering down my inheritance whilst in reality she knows this will blow the family apart with bickering greedy grandchildren?

Split it evenly.

Mumoftwoyoungkids · 21/08/2020 14:10

@Whenwillthisbeover

DH earns tonnes more than me but I’ve worked a lot bloody harder 😂

We’ve done a similar thing.

Everything to each other.
Everything to the kiddos.
50% to my brother and 25% to each of his brothers.

Our reason for this is that under “normal” inheritance systems our parents would inherit rather than our brothers. However, parents are already all comfortable so leaving them money would just mean that brothers would get it later post yet more inheritance tax. So brothers. But half to my side and half to dh’s.

There is indeed a 30 day survivorship clause in so it doesn’t matter who dies first in our terrible car crash.

(In fact the reason that dh was willing to make a will - he hates stuff like that - was when I pointed out that if something happened to the two of us (this is pre the kids) and we were both dead when the emergency services arrived then my (very well off) parents would get Every Single Penny and his (comfortable but less well off than mine) parents would technically not even have the right to his childhood keepsakes. (I’m younger.))

AristotleAteMyHamster · 21/08/2020 14:11

Equally, unless either A or B brought assets into the marriage that they’d inherited from their own family. So if A had inherited a house from their grandparents as the oldest grandchild (for instance), then that should be left to A’s family.

Sailingblue · 21/08/2020 14:15

I’d be more comfortable with B. The other factor that might complicate it was whether there were nieces and nephews you wanted to inherit. Circumstances change and I think it’s always hard to factor that in unless there is a clear disability or issue that sets one sibling massively apart from the others.

I’d be more keen on equal split between A and B’s sides If you were passing down the generations.

RomaineCalm · 21/08/2020 14:15

Our wills are Option A in the event that we died together - I think the solicitor talked about it as an 'Armageddon Scenario'

I think it does also depend on how close the two extended families are. If they are likely to still see each other regularly after your (joint) funeral it might feel less controversial to go with Option B. If siblings have different numbers of DC that complicates things further - you can tie yourself in knots trying to be fair to everyone so in our case it made sense to split 50:50.

Inthemuckheap · 21/08/2020 14:15

We've done A BUT we have a child who is about to have our first grandchild so the likelihood of our siblings inheriting is low.

I do and have always earned significantly more than OH but I thought it rather petty to leave more to my siblings in the event of them inheriting along with OH's siblings (I have 2 and he has 3 if that makes a difference).

If I die then my half automatically transfers in trust to our one DC to stop any future spouse of my OH getting their grubby hands on anything!

CleverCatty · 21/08/2020 14:16

@ClaraJude

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.

what I'd do.

from working in a solicitor's office too for a few years this is definitely the fairest even if you fall out with one sibling yourselves as leaving them (beneficiaries) in the will. I've seen countless cases where sometimes (but usually it's just children who can contest a will) relatives are bitter over what's been left to others.

FinnyStory · 21/08/2020 14:16

Yes, a far more likely situation is that in which one partner dies first resulting in their siblings getting nothing from the remaining partner's will.

Sophiesdog2020 · 21/08/2020 14:17

If a beneficiary dies first, their portion goes back into the pot, unless they have children and then it can go to them (but not sure if a specific clause for that needs to be included?). Our wills allow for any future grandchildren to inherit their parent’s share if either of our children pre decease us but already have children.

However, if we all die, both our wills state a 6 way split, nieces, nephew, god children etc. One of the beneficiaries has since died, single with no children and I recently checked that their portion would go back into pot, rather than to their parents. Solicitor confirmed it would.

dwiz8 · 21/08/2020 14:17

I would always advocate for being as equitable as possible so B all the way

Flip

1 2 3 4 5