. . . to think parents are being naive about our "inheritance"?

[OhFFSNotAnotherVirus]

Just pondering . . . for some reason it's niggling at me, maybe because I find their lack of understanding frustrating!

I also want to point out that I in no way "expect" anything from my parents - I've been financially independent since I was 18 and I'm proud of what I've achieved by myself.

Parent are 65, I have one brother and one sister. Parents gave my brother their life savings (close to £100k) so he could buy a nicer house than he could afford by himself. Parents told me and my sister that they would change their wills to leave their house (a small townhouse worth about £200k) to the two of us, to make it fair.

I don't think it is fair, though. Chances are the house will be sold in the future to pay for their care. They seem blissfully unaware that this is a possibility - or a likelihood - and seem almost smug about having done the right thing by all three of their children. I've brought up the possibility that the house might need to be sold to pay for care, but they dismissed this, saying absolutely not, they wouldn't be going into a home, they'd rather go to Dignitas first . . .

I'm saying nothing further, there's no point and I know there's no entitlement here. But AIBU to be a bit . . . ?

Oh and this all happened a couple of years ago and they haven't changed their wills anyway

@joangray38

My neighbour went to DIGNITAS - took months to go through all the psychological testing - prove she was of sound mind and illnesses had to be reassessed privately. Cost over £10,000 plus DIGNITAS don’t always accept you and will COVID people can’t easily access them.

£10k?

@TractorAndHeadphones

As far as I have seen it’s not whether they have a condition that needs care. If anyone is of sufficiently advanced age then it’s deemed deprivation of assets
If it’s a 70 year old (no matter how spry) it would definitely be deprivation.

That’s not the case. The local authority has to show

(a) whether avoiding the care and support charge was a significant motivation in the timing of the disposal of the asset; at the point the capital was disposed of could the person have a reasonable expectation of the need for care and support?
(b) did the person have a reasonable expectation of needing to contribute to the cost of their eligible care needs?

Simply being a certain age would not be a deciding factor. The guidance gives an example of a person buying a car and then giving it to their daughter two weeks later, after they go into a care home. If the person already knew they were going to be moving into the home, it could be deprivation of assets. If the person (be they age 30 or 50 or 90) was in good health at the time of purchase but then fell downstairs or had a stroke or was hit by a car, it wouldn’t be deprivation because they didn’t have a reasonable expectation of needing to contribute to the cost of the care at the time of purchase. But the local authority would probably look at it very closely to be sure.

It’s all set out here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/care-act-statutory-guidance/care-and-support-statutory-guidance in Annex E and most councils will also have their own policies available.

For the poster who mentioned putting property in trust, that is a specific example given in the guidance of a deprivation of assets. Councils are broke. They will (rightly) look for any way to reduce their financial liability. They will examine any and all cases of possible deprivation extremely closely.

YANBU. This is such extreme favouritism of one child over the others.

1. Even in their ideal world where they would leave you two £100k each, £100k in 20, 30 or 40 years will not be worth what £100k today is.

1. The power of £100k to change your life you're younger is not the same as the power of it to change your life for the better when you're older. It makes a difference how young you are when you get it.

1. They can guarantee that they have £100k. They cannot guarantee they'll have £200k in the future. That makes a promise of £100k in the future worth less than a guarantee of £100k. This is basic economics.

Another one who finds people working out how best to avoid paying for care they can afford very depressing.

Keep that wealth in your family, cost the council a fortune to stretch the care budget thinner and thinner meaning shitter care for the people who absolutely couldn't afford it themselves (and won't get to stay in their nice house/pass something onto their kids).

(And I say this as someone whose reasonably well-off grandparents have sold their houses to pay for care, and now my skint parents won't inherit anything and nor will I or my siblings . And I am more than happy with that, because their assets paid for care that they needed instead of squirrelling money away to cheat a system designed to help the people who need it.)

1. The tax implications of getting inheritance vs a gift to help with a house are different.

I would be extremely annoyed with this favouritism and I would probably be in much less contact with my parents after this kind of treatment.

Surely they can't just give away 100k. What if they need care in the near future?

@frozenyoghurt4

YANBU. This is such extreme favouritism of one child over the others.

1. Even in their ideal world where they would leave you two £100k each, £100k in 20, 30 or 40 years will not be worth what £100k today is.

1. The power of £100k to change your life you're younger is not the same as the power of it to change your life for the better when you're older. It makes a difference how young you are when you get it.

1. They can guarantee that they have £100k. They cannot guarantee they'll have £200k in the future. That makes a promise of £100k in the future worth less than a guarantee of £100k. This is basic economics.

Yes to all of this.

@GreyhoundG1rl yep as she couldn’t go with her husband as he could be prosecuted for helping her she had to charter a private airplane , a DIGNITAS employee escorted her over , she had the injection and died. Then someone brought her cremated remains back to the U.K. they charge for everything.

@starpatch

I don't think this will work Ginfilledcats. The local authority can still consider the house for care. Even for inheritance tax it doesn't work as they are still living in it.

Yeah loads of people do this and actually it isn't just a case of 7years, £1 rent, all sorted. When it comes to care they'll look at assets and housing and if it appears you've deliberately hidden assets or substantially reduced your savings etc, then they can still count it.

I understand why people do it but it might not work.

You must also make sure the new 'owner' of the house has I'm their will something allowing them to still live there, imagine you've signed your house over to your children, they die and it's technically now passed to your estranged DIL or grandkids etc.

Last time I read about dignitas, it cost about £ 7000, That was ages ago, it's probably double that now.

There is definitely a lot of the generation who do not understand how it all works.
MIL updated her will a couple of years ago and kept on about how DH and I were joint executors and would get everything etc, however, everything is her bungalow, which she took out equity release on about 8 years ago, so realistically all she is leaving us is the hassle of sorting it all out when she passes as there will be no value left with the extortionate interest rates of equity release!
DH and I just smile and nod when she talks about it as no point in bursting her bubble that she will leave us a good inheritance as it's too late for her to change anything anyway.
DH and I have never expected an inheritance anyway so it's just kinder to let her think she has done something nice.

It's worth remembering that the current rules could change by the time OPs parents pass on. Those who try to play the system and avoid tax and IHT could be caught up in changes later on. Although from experience it is more like to be those who can well afford to pay that go to the greatest lengths to avoid it, not ordinary families like OPs.

@CleanQueen123

To be honest *@TractorAndHeadphones* I was surprised as well. I was pretty certain they'd decide it was deprevation of assets but they didn't.

They did go over everything and speak to her doctors and the solicitor who advised and organised the house transfer.

They definitely wouldn't have just taken my mother's word for it that it hadn't been deliberately planned.

You did say that your mum lived in the house. That might have made a difference too. How long did she live there for? Did she own her own home? The answers to those questions may help to understand the decision.

@thecatsthecats

I can see my parents ending up making a mistake like that.

They own two houses plus have significant funds for care, but they have a misguided sense of what is fair and desirable by all parties.

One house - where my sister and I grew up - is theoretically worth up to treble the other, but in reality needs hundreds of thousands of pounds worth to reach that value on the market (as evidenced by the house next door). Realistically only worth twice as much.

The other is old fashioned but could be sold fairly quickly.

My sister and I would like to rent out our old house and then I would live in it (sister wouldn't want to live there). My brother has no sentimental attachment to either house and would just want the money.

Yet he's been made executor, and we're pretty sure they've split the whole thing three ways. And now they're talking about making direct provision for portions of the houses to grandchildren! Just asking for trouble, and given my brother is an awkward sod, will cause no end of rows.

Selling the properties and splitting the procedes 3 ways is a totally fair and reasonable thing to do. You aren't being hard done by.

@Yourstupidityexhaustsme

Your parents need to sign their home to you and your sister. If they survive for seven years without needing care/dying it cannot be taken for care nor is it regarded as a deprivation of assets. The name evades me but it’s a legitimate inheritance scheme.

Wrong

When I read threads like this I’m struck by how naive people are about the care system and about infirmity.

Even leaving aside the moral dubiousness of shifting responsibility for a parent’s care onto the state, there is sadly (but hardly surprisingly, as in everything else we do in the uk) a fairly cavernous gap between the basic care the state is prepared to pay for and the quality of your parents’ lives if they can afford to pay for their own care. It is true that in nursing homes, you might well find (shock horror) that someone else is getting the same care that you are having to pay for, but ‘for free’. However, most people will be in residential care homes - not nursing homes.

Many fairly standard residential care homes are now so expensive that the council will go nowhere near them - and if you - as the child - have the cash (because it’s been ‘gifted’ to you) to make ‘additional voluntary contributions’, your parents will depend on you - and your then partner - agreeing to spend the money on them - and the council may also start to wonder how you have all this spare money.

More importantly, by handing over their savings/house and relying on the state, parents cede their autonomy and lose out on the chance to find the residential care that best suits their likes and dislikes, with the right staff ratio, located close to family, interesting activities etc and don’t spend their remaining days eg prematurely wearing an incontinence pad because there aren’t enough carers to help them to the toilet when they need a wee, sitting in a big living room against a permanent backdrop of monotonous daytime tv and waiting for the worst kind of school lunch to be served.

Before parents hand over their assets to children, they should tour some residential care homes. This disparity is only going to get worse, as a result of the funding crisis that covid represents.

Whenever threads about unfair inheritance crop up, there are always a few people saying how awful and grabby it is and that no one has a right to expect anything.

They are entirely missing the point. A parent might leave their entire estate to a donkey sanctuary. The children may think it's odd, but they are being treated equally; there isn't the hurt of seeing one sibling being favoured.

It honestly seems astounding that any decent parent could wilfully treat their children in such an unfair way. I understand that in rare situations, one sibling might be undeniably 'more needy', such as one sibling being extremely disabled, unable to work or live independently and the other siblings all being healthy. However even in a situation like this, it may not be the wisest choice to leave everything to the disabled child because a large inheritance might impact on the funding they would receive for care.

Anyhow, that's an extreme and relatively rare example. The main point is that the vast majority of cases are far far more nuanced. Differences in the circumstances of adult siblings are usually a result of many factors. People have different priorities... some will prioritise buying a house, some will prioritise 'experiences' such as travelling. Some will work harder than others. Some might prioritise earning a good salary in a high pressure job while others may earn considerably less doing something they absolutely love. An adult daughter might appear to be better off if they have just one child compared to their sister who's struggling with three or four little ones. But perhaps the woman with one child desperately wanted more. There is just no simple way of comparing how 'deserving' adult siblings are I can completely understand why it can destroy family relationships if parents write their will in such a completely inequitable way.

And of course, alongside this is the fact that no one knows what's round the corner. That adult son or daughter who's been sidelined in the will because they seem to be 'fine' might get sick, have an accident, be made redundant...

It's actually a really cruel thing to do to treat your own children so unfairly. I have 4 adult children myself. They're not carbon copies of each other, they all have different personalities, strengths and weaknesses. One in particular has needed more emotional support along the way and also lived at home longer than the others, not moving out until his mid twenties due to a range of reasons; he suffered with depression and needed longer to take the step to independence. On the face of it, he might look the most 'needy'. But I would never ever do something so hugely inequitable like the OPs situation. When I or dh die, whoever is last to go, our house and assets will be shared absolutely equally 4 ways. Anything else would be cruel and likely to leave a legacy of massive hurt.

@knittingaddict my mum had only lived there in the two months prior to the stroke. However, she moved hundreds of miles to do this and gave up her rented properties.

Without saying too much as it would be outing it also wasn't a standard property so it wouldn't have been as simple as mum moving out and the place being sold.

It was also written into the paperwork that my grandmother had the right to remain on the property for her lifetime, with certain caveats. So they didn't do it with the knowledge or expectation that she would be going into a care home soon after.

I imagine all of that contributed to the LAs decision.

@findtheirsocks

Whenever threads about unfair inheritance crop up, there are always a few people saying how awful and grabby it is and that no one has a right to expect anything.

They are entirely missing the point. A parent might leave their entire estate to a donkey sanctuary. The children may think it's odd, but they are being treated equally; there isn't the hurt of seeing one sibling being favoured.

It honestly seems astounding that any decent parent could wilfully treat their children in such an unfair way. I understand that in rare situations, one sibling might be undeniably 'more needy', such as one sibling being extremely disabled, unable to work or live independently and the other siblings all being healthy. However even in a situation like this, it may not be the wisest choice to leave everything to the disabled child because a large inheritance might impact on the funding they would receive for care.

Anyhow, that's an extreme and relatively rare example. The main point is that the vast majority of cases are far far more nuanced. Differences in the circumstances of adult siblings are usually a result of many factors. People have different priorities... some will prioritise buying a house, some will prioritise 'experiences' such as travelling. Some will work harder than others. Some might prioritise earning a good salary in a high pressure job while others may earn considerably less doing something they absolutely love. An adult daughter might appear to be better off if they have just one child compared to their sister who's struggling with three or four little ones. But perhaps the woman with one child desperately wanted more. There is just no simple way of comparing how 'deserving' adult siblings are I can completely understand why it can destroy family relationships if parents write their will in such a completely inequitable way.

And of course, alongside this is the fact that no one knows what's round the corner. That adult son or daughter who's been sidelined in the will because they seem to be 'fine' might get sick, have an accident, be made redundant...

It's actually a really cruel thing to do to treat your own children so unfairly. I have 4 adult children myself. They're not carbon copies of each other, they all have different personalities, strengths and weaknesses. One in particular has needed more emotional support along the way and also lived at home longer than the others, not moving out until his mid twenties due to a range of reasons; he suffered with depression and needed longer to take the step to independence. On the face of it, he might look the most 'needy'. But I would never ever do something so hugely inequitable like the OPs situation. When I or dh die, whoever is last to go, our house and assets will be shared absolutely equally 4 ways. Anything else would be cruel and likely to leave a legacy of massive hurt.

So how would you feel if 3 of yours said that one had more support from you and they wanted the cash equivalent? Subsidised housing for years more than them, worth a few bob? How far do we go with this childish "it's not fair."

@ancientgran surely the question you raise is one that any decent parent of two or more children thinks about as an ongoing thing?

Pretty much from the day they're born, you aim to meet the differing needs of each child while striving to be equitable. I'd have thought that was fairly obvious!

It's absurd to think that every aspect of life can be carefully calculated and weighed up so that each child receives exactly the same input of time, parental energy etc. And I challenge you to find me any parent on earth who has calculated down to the pound exactly how much they have spent on each child over the years!

The point is that when it comes to huge and significant issues like inheritance, it's cruel to behave in a way which openly treats children differently, favouring one over others.

Btw, you seem to have assumed that in my personal circumstances my ds had some huge advantage over his siblings by living rent free at home for far longer than his brothers and sister. He didn't. We charged him a certain sum of money, partly because we felt it was important that as an adult in his early twenties he acknowledged this responsibility and partly precisely because of the point you raise. Paying for housing is a fairly significant thing, and it would have felt very unfair to his siblings to allow one son to live rent free while they were paying rent to live independently.

But yes, ultimately ds 2 had a few more years of living in the family home than his brothers and sister because as parents, we were doing our level best to meet his needs and be supportive parents without giving him some huge advantage over our other sons and our daughter. That's what parents do, isn't it?

@findtheirsocks

Whenever threads about unfair inheritance crop up, there are always a few people saying how awful and grabby it is and that no one has a right to expect anything.

They are entirely missing the point. A parent might leave their entire estate to a donkey sanctuary. The children may think it's odd, but they are being treated equally; there isn't the hurt of seeing one sibling being favoured.

It honestly seems astounding that any decent parent could wilfully treat their children in such an unfair way. I understand that in rare situations, one sibling might be undeniably 'more needy', such as one sibling being extremely disabled, unable to work or live independently and the other siblings all being healthy. However even in a situation like this, it may not be the wisest choice to leave everything to the disabled child because a large inheritance might impact on the funding they would receive for care.

Anyhow, that's an extreme and relatively rare example. The main point is that the vast majority of cases are far far more nuanced. Differences in the circumstances of adult siblings are usually a result of many factors. People have different priorities... some will prioritise buying a house, some will prioritise 'experiences' such as travelling. Some will work harder than others. Some might prioritise earning a good salary in a high pressure job while others may earn considerably less doing something they absolutely love. An adult daughter might appear to be better off if they have just one child compared to their sister who's struggling with three or four little ones. But perhaps the woman with one child desperately wanted more. There is just no simple way of comparing how 'deserving' adult siblings are I can completely understand why it can destroy family relationships if parents write their will in such a completely inequitable way.

And of course, alongside this is the fact that no one knows what's round the corner. That adult son or daughter who's been sidelined in the will because they seem to be 'fine' might get sick, have an accident, be made redundant...

It's actually a really cruel thing to do to treat your own children so unfairly. I have 4 adult children myself. They're not carbon copies of each other, they all have different personalities, strengths and weaknesses. One in particular has needed more emotional support along the way and also lived at home longer than the others, not moving out until his mid twenties due to a range of reasons; he suffered with depression and needed longer to take the step to independence. On the face of it, he might look the most 'needy'. But I would never ever do something so hugely inequitable like the OPs situation. When I or dh die, whoever is last to go, our house and assets will be shared absolutely equally 4 ways. Anything else would be cruel and likely to leave a legacy of massive hurt.

I don't think it's always that straight forward either. Life is rarely that black and white.

What if one grown up child has significantly cared for one or both parents? Given up a significant amount of time to do so? The parents may feel that leaving that person more is fair. That an inheritance being equally split in these circumstances will cause resentment and hurt just as much as a seemingly unfair split of it does.

At the end of the day it's up to the individual how any inheritance is split. And as it's their money, that's entirely how it should be. The people who inherit (or not in some cases) should have no say in it.

I think if you want to reward a child for doing things for you then you should do that while you are alive. Then you treat them all the same in the will, which is the last thing you ever say to your children.

@findtheirsocks So you accept one had an advantage over the others? Let's face it you didn't charge him what it would have been costing the others for rent, heating, food etc. Yes it is normal to give according to need and the same goes for inheritance. I've said one of mine is getting more than the others, not in the will but getting help now for a specific reason. which isn't relevant here. The others don't have the same reason/need so she is getting about £25k to £50k more than them. According to many on here that should be reducing what she gets when we die. I don't agree. Just like you gave your son a subsidised place to live because he needed it she is getting money that will help her with something she needs.

I've done a massive amount of childcare for one set of GC, they happen to live near to me and the others are 200 miles away. I will have saved their parents thousands of pounds over the years, reduced nursery fees, no need for breakfast/afterschool care, no need for holiday clubs. Should I work out what I saved them and give it to the others? Am I being unfair, should I have said no because I couldn't do the same for the others.

I have a friend who got into a massive state as one of her kids went to uni and the other didn't. Oh dear the younger one got about £10k to help her through uni, should she give the older working one with her own home £10k to make it fair. I told her in my opinion she shouldn't, the money was for a specific reason that only applied to one of them. A few years passed and the older one decided on a career change and went to uni and got her £10k when it was appropriate. What would they have done if they had just willy nilly given her £10k to be fair? Would she have had to struggle when she went to uni or would they have had to give them both another £10k.

It just gets silly. Support kids as they need it, money doesn't mean love or caring.

By the way my other kids know what I'm doing and agree it is appropriate although they all say I should spend my money and leave them nothing which is the right attitude in my book.

Life is more complicated that how much you get in inheritance. I got nothing from my parents when they died. I got lots of love and care and support when they were alive which is far more valuable.

Tigger1001 What if one grown up child has significantly cared for one or both parents? Given up a significant amount of time to do so? The parents may feel that leaving that person more is fair. That an inheritance being equally split in these circumstances will cause resentment and hurt just as much as a seemingly unfair split of it does.

That is so true and I agree it is entirely fair to give that supportive child more than the others.

@knittingaddict

I think if you want to reward a child for doing things for you then you should do that while you are alive. Then you treat them all the same in the will, which is the last thing you ever say to your children.

It doesn't have to be the last thing you ever say to them. Write a letter to go with the will.