Will/inheritance question.

[rattusrattus20]

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.

How is it watering down the inheritance when GC parents get their share which will be divided on their deaths to their children?

They have to wait longer because their parents lived?

so option B.

what might happen after you die and estate is distributed is that the siblings if they are substantially better off than the one sibling who is not - if they are reasonable and fair people - they may (don't have to) gift the other sibling an amount of money themselves. Happened in the past where this has happened. Nice if it happens. If it doesn't, that's life.

We’ve gone for B. I have 6 siblings, DH has 2, everything will be split 8 ways if we (us & kids) all die together.

A

We have everything set up 50/50 between each other, regardless of who brought what or who subsequently earned what. What I do with my 50% is for me to decide and likewise for DH. Anything else starts to get to complicated with too much whataboutery.

I’m split between A and B, maybe only slightly more towards A

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.

The only way to ensure that doesn’t happen would be to give the siblings some on first death, but surely most people leave all to their spouse.

Yes there is a risk that the one left behind will re marry and change their will, but there has to be a certain amount of trust surely.

Our 6 beneficiaries (on death of us all) were split 3 on each side. The death of one has meant only 2 on my side, but there is no way that I would change my will to disinherit any of DH relatives, if he died first.

The higher earner should just start giving their money away while alive - my aunt did that. So her side got expensive jewellry / £00s for every major and minor celebration / gifts toward houses. She probably only had a couple thousand in her account by the time she died.

I’d go for B

Obviously if we both die our children split the inheritance however I haven’t thought of the situation if we all die, think I’ll leave it to charity!
Dh has 3 siblings and 8 nieces and nephews whereas I have a sibling and a niece and nephew.

Easier leaving it to charity!

That is our situation. We are just looking at wills. Each other first and foremost and then we have been tasked with discussing siblings and other relatives.

We may yet decide on a charity or scholarship fund! None of our siblings did anything to help us earn anything. DHs family is large, I'd have to recruit cousins and people I've never met to 'even it up'. So we are currently playing a very unedfting game of 'what if' - believe me, if one of us finds 3rd party, organisation, we both like that's it!

B. The siblings are all individual adults, none of whom have “earned” the money. I think B results in the least possible “offence” as makes no judgements about circumstances etc.

Whilst obviously it's best to consult a solicitor to actually WRITE the will, you need to agree who gets what beforehand. A solicitor isn't going to be keen to spend hours discussing every last permutation/possibility with you, especially if it's on a fixed fee deal, and some of the cheaper will writing services will only do simple wills anyway.

The OP is doing the right thing in starting the thinking process, i.e.

1. what happens if I die first;
2. what happens if OH dies first;
3. what happens if we die together, etc etc.

Unless you have a will trust then the estate of whoever dies first goes to the other and the other can then change their will anyway so that nothing goes to the sibling of the first to die. That's what will trusts are for, i.e. to give their half share share of assets to the surviving on an lifetime interest trust, which then passes to the first to die's sibling on second death.

Lots of people make the mistake of thinking all they need are "mirror" wills and completely miss the point that there's absolutely no obligation on the surviving spouse to keep their will unchanged! They're relying on the good nature of their spouse, which may be well intentioned (by both) but when a new partner/new spouse comes along, the original "deal" can quickly be forgotten!

Back to the OP's question though. Are you both close to all three siblings, i.e. not physically close, but do you all keep in touch, do you all get on, etc etc. Do any of them actually "need" your money for themselves or their families? Did either of you inherit from your own parents?

In our case, we each have one sibling. We also have a son, so of course our entire estate will go to our son on our demise, but should he die before or with us, then we have made bequests to our siblings, neither of which we are particularly close to (in any sense). I'm not particularly bothered one way nor another about leaving anything to my sister, so I've included a particular figure (tens of Ks) to her in my will so at least she can pay off her mortgage and buy a car. OH got a fair inheritance when his mother died, mostly proceeds of her house - it was shared between OH and his brother. We've agreed that should we all die together, his brother will get a figure of virtually double what my sister will get, simply being his "share" of their mother's estate. The balance of our estate (substantially more) would go to various local charities which are important to us. If our siblings don't like it, tough shit! We won't be here to hear them whingeing!

@GrumpyHoonMain good job she didnt live longer or need greater care then, isnt it?

Yeah if you both died at the same time, the law decides who died first (usually the elder) and the wills are carried out in that order.
So if its decided you died first, your will is carried out, if that leaves it all to partner then his will is carried out.
If you in fact leave it all to a cats home that's the end.

I'd go with b personally unless the single sibling was in a much worse financial position and then a as it could still be viewed as fair.

We were advised that if we died together then it was the younger spouse that would of deemed to of lived longer.

@BluePaintSample

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.

But those grandchildren with a deceased parent are inheriting their share from their parent.That's only fair. The children with living parents will inherit from their own parents eventually.

Unlikely as this is to happen I would go for equal share for all siblings.

Split 3 ways.

1. they won't pass away at the same time

2. whatever they might say today, it is not at all unusual for the widow or widower to make a new will doing something different.

Thanks for the replies.

I think I'm seeing a split very roughly [e.g. if you look carefully at ppls reasoning the proper split might be more like say 30:40:30, or 20:40:40, even 20:60:20, but it's definitely not say 50:25:25] along the lines of:

25% support for A;
50% support for B;
25% support for some mix of options or something else completely.

That's probably enough for me to go on, for now, so thanks all.

Option A feels right to me though I can see the appeal of B.

Even the cheapest WH Smith DIY will will include a 28 or 30 day survivorship clause so that if you die more or less at the same time your assets don’t have to go through two sets of probate but can go straight to Plan B as if both spouses were already dead. The standard clauses on a prepackaged will will also pass an inheritance to the children or grandchildren of a beneficiary in equal shares if they predecease you.

In reality, dying together is very unlikely so the survivor will probably leave it all to their siblings or new spouse/stepchild. If this is unacceptable to you then you need legal assistance.

My estranged parents both died in the last few years, mother most recently. They had mirror wills, with both setting out the same scenario. Once father died mother secretly changed her will and left her half to one child. There have been explosions!

I prefer A. That's what should happen I believe if you both had children with previous partners, so what with siblings. However very highly unlikely to happen. Should you die first it would all go to your husband if married, then he could give it to whoever he likes and your siblings will get nothing.

I wasn't in either will and not at all bothered 😊

This is all very interesting and quite topical.

DMiL died a couple of years ago and left everything to be split evenly between her 2 sons.

Son1 has 3 children
Son2 has none but is in a relationship with a woman who has 1 daughter. When he dies (assuming he goes first) he will leave everything to partner/her daughter. So some 'stranger' who is not related to to MiL will end up with half of her (fairly large) estate.

DH is Son1. This really isn't a problem for us. Money was split evenly etc, yet there is a little sadness that half of MiL's money will go to someone she never met and isn't related to while her own three grandchildren get only a 1/3rd each.