. . . 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

Why did your brother allow his parents to give all their savings at that age? Do they have very good pensions? If not it’s a crazy thing to do.

@ancientgran: @findtheirsocks So you accept one had an advantage over the others?

No, I don't. You can choose to put whatever spin you like on someone else's posts, but that's precisely what dh and I have striven to not do. We have always aimed to meet our children's differing needs while treating them as equitably as we can.

You seem determined to nit pick over people's posts simply because you hold a different view from the majority on this thread who think the OP is right to feel hurt.

To put it bluntly, there is absolutely no way any parents can treat their children exactly equally in every way. For a start, a first born gets years of undivided parental attention. When baby number 2 comes along, should the parents farm out child number 1 for a couple of years in order to even things up and give child 2 a couple of years of undiluted time and energy? And if the value of one child's Christmas presents comes to £97:20 and another's comes to £97:90, does the parent stick 70p or some cheap bit of plastic tat in the stocking to even things up?

The point I made is that when it comes to big, significant issues then it's likely to cause great hurt if one child is significantly favoured over others. We didn't let our ds2 live here at a vastly subsidised rate (which interestingly you're desperately trying to tell me we did!) precisely because it would have sat very uncomfortably with us to treat our children so differently.

To return to the OP (which after all is the focus of this thread, not you or me) the situation is that she and her sister prioritised getting on the housing ladder early while their brother prioritised the experience of travel. Both choices are valid, both require some sacrifices and both bring benefits. The parents then give the brother £100k to 'even things up' I'm not sure in what universe anyone can think that's a reasonable way for a loving parent to behave. A decision like that is inevitably going to make the sisters feel hurt and sidelined.

And before someone bleats 'it's not all about money' - well surely as a living parent, you want a your children to live enriched fulfilling lives? A significant inheritance facilitates choices. Maybe the sisters who've worked hard and prioritised a house and mortgage might want the experience or travel now, or in a few years time. Maybe they'd like to change from their career and do something which pays less but brings them personal fulfilment. They don't get that opportunity because the parents have naively thought they are 'levelling things up'.

I think inheritance causes no end of issues. I'm in a situation where relative A left me a significant sum of money but in trust with relatives B & C in charge and I don't inherit until C dies.

In the 20 years since A died the money has been spent by B & C without any involvement or consultation with me.

As things stand, by the time C dies I'll likely be in my 50s or 60s and be lucky to get 50p.

That's absolutely not what A intended. It should have been enough money to purchase a house and give me an income. Due to various circumstances I'm unlikely to ever be able to afford to buy a house without this money so there is certainly resentment that B & C have taken away this opportunity.

@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.

I disagree.

That's just too black and white for me. And life just doesn't work that way.

Maybe the elderly parents don't want to gift money while they are alive to ensure they have enough to live on for however many years.

Maybe the care comes while the parents are elderly and the parents don't want to "buy" care from their grown up children.

Maybe there has been significant falling out between child and parent.

They might have reasons as to why they don't leave their estate equally between grown up children.

[quote findtheirsocks]**@ancientgran: @findtheirsocks So you accept one had an advantage over the others?

No, I don't. You can choose to put whatever spin you like on someone else's posts, but that's precisely what dh and I have striven to not do. We have always aimed to meet our children's differing needs while treating them as equitably as we can.

You seem determined to nit pick over people's posts simply because you hold a different view from the majority on this thread who think the OP is right to feel hurt.

To put it bluntly, there is absolutely no way any parents can treat their children exactly equally in every way. For a start, a first born gets years of undivided parental attention. When baby number 2 comes along, should the parents farm out child number 1 for a couple of years in order to even things up and give child 2 a couple of years of undiluted time and energy? And if the value of one child's Christmas presents comes to £97:20 and another's comes to £97:90, does the parent stick 70p or some cheap bit of plastic tat in the stocking to even things up?

The point I made is that when it comes to big, significant issues then it's likely to cause great hurt if one child is significantly favoured over others. We didn't let our ds2 live here at a vastly subsidised rate (which interestingly you're desperately trying to tell me we did!) precisely because it would have sat very uncomfortably with us to treat our children so differently.

To return to the OP (which after all is the focus of this thread, not you or me) the situation is that she and her sister prioritised getting on the housing ladder early while their brother prioritised the experience of travel. Both choices are valid, both require some sacrifices and both bring benefits. The parents then give the brother £100k to 'even things up' I'm not sure in what universe anyone can think that's a reasonable way for a loving parent to behave. A decision like that is inevitably going to make the sisters feel hurt and sidelined.

And before someone bleats 'it's not all about money' - well surely as a living parent, you want a your children to live enriched fulfilling lives? A significant inheritance facilitates choices. Maybe the sisters who've worked hard and prioritised a house and mortgage might want the experience or travel now, or in a few years time. Maybe they'd like to change from their career and do something which pays less but brings them personal fulfilment. They don't get that opportunity because the parents have naively thought they are 'levelling things up'. [/quote]
Touched a raw nerve there didn't I.

@ancientgran still trying to tell other posters what they think ....

@Ginfilledcats

My in laws have put their house in my husband and his sisters name (they're early 60s) and pay a token rent if £1 a month. This bypasses the house being used to pay for their care as long as it's in their sons name for 7 years before any costs are needed.

My parents are going to do the same I think.

Afraid this doesn't work. For care costs it's counted as a deliberate deprivation of assets and for tax it's a gift with reservation so ineffective. I wouldn't make any plans on getting the cash from that house if I were you.

[quote findtheirsocks]@ancientgran still trying to tell other posters what they think .... [/quote]
No, reading what they write.

Oh dearie me @ancientgran
I could copy and paste your posts and type 'touched a raw nerve' at the end if I couldn't respond intelligently and resorted to make a childish comment instead. It means nothing.

OP - I completely understand why you feel hurt by your parents inequitable treatment. It's astonishing that loving parents could give their savings of £100 k to one child simply because he wanted different things out of life and chose 'experiences' rather than buying a house. It's also incredibly naive of them because as others have pointed out, they may need those savings in future.
It's also pretty astonishing that your brother was happy to accept all their savings, knowing they might need them and also that there was no guarantee his siblings would ever receive an inheritance. I guess some people are just selfish and will comfortably take take take while seeing their siblings not being treated fairly

@ancientgran

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.

I just wanted to add to this.

My mother was significantly older than her two siblings. When she was a teenager my grandmother was very ill. Grandfather was overseas so my mother had to give up her job and for 2 years she nursed her mother while also being "mother" to her younger siblings. Many year later GM died, she had a few thousand and she left it to my mother. I thought it was fair, my mother gave up 2 years of her life and became a 24/7 carer to her mother. Her siblings were very upset about it which I thought was terrible as what would have happened to them if she hadn't looked after them, a home or foster care. If it had been split it would have had about £1k each. GM stated in the will why she was doing it.

Equal definitely doesn't always mean fair.

I have a very similar situation. My parents have given my sibling 1/4 million to as a gift deposit. This isn’t my sibling’s first house, or their partner’s. They both work and have a decent income. The difference being, I think, is my DS inherited some money when his parents died so I think my parents decided to even things out…actually I have no idea why. I have been told that the will states I should get the same amount but to be honest that isn’t the point. Realistically, that money won’t be there after both parents are gone, the expenses etc paid off, taxes paid. But what upsets me is the fact that my DF asked how I felt about this (shocked) but the house had already been bought so I am not too sure why he felt to ask my view. It is a significant amount of money, theirs to spend but they will miss that when the expense of end of life kicks in. I understand that even the solicitor questioned the wisdom of the amount.

It has left a nasty feeling, it is very obvious who is the preferred child, I might be more spiky but have always been there when they have needed support.

I completely understand where OP is coming from. It isn’t the money, it is the underhand nature of it. I have never been helped in the same way, nor do I want to. Just seems crazy to give a deposit to someone for a housing upgrade who doesn’t need it, except to have smaller monthly payments.

Afraid this doesn't work. For care costs it's counted as a deliberate deprivation of assets and for tax it's a gift with reservation so ineffective. I wouldn't make any plans on getting the cash from that house if I were you.

@Ginfilledcats
As usual, probably as well to be wary of free advice from strangers on the internet, but in the circumstances you describe it's more than likely that this will work from the point of view of putting assets beyond the reach of the local authority for care fees. There is provision for having gifts added to "notional capital" for means testing for care fees, and also for the donees of the gift to be pursued. But in the circumstances you describe where the donor is fit and healthy at the time of the gift those powers are very unlikely to arise.

There are plenty of other reasons why that sort of gift might not be a good idea. And the "reservation of benefit" (living there for no real rent) means that it won't help with IHT planning. But it's quite likely to save you care fees.

@tigger1001

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.

While I can understand what you are saying I do think that sometimes wills get written with too little thought given to how they can be executed.

Complicated wills get written which deal with the immediate situation in front of the testator. At that moment one beneficiary may seem to be more fortunate than another and the testator seeks to 'even things out'. The testator then sits back thinking they have been fair and that the intention to be fair is what will be executed rather than the precise wording of the will.

Of course it is the precise wording of the will which gets executed which can, by the time the will gets executed, be grossly unfair.

OP, I can see why you are upset by this but I think your parents felt they were being fair to you all in a misguided way and, as pp have said, their house should be worth way more when the time comes. Care home fees notwithstanding, it is important that they rewrite their wills and I think some not-so-gentle reminders are in order along with 'shall I make that appointment then?'. Perhaps they don't want to dwell on their future deaths and think they've got years ahead of them...?

If all the wise provisions were actually put into wills rather than just being thought about there would be far fewer upset relatives.

I found the process of writing my will very helpful. It forced me to think things through. Having seen a couple of tricky family wills DH and I have opted for simplicity. DCs know that if they get left anything after care has been paid for then it is windfall. It will only happen once.

@Broccoli123, see a solicitor. Trustees shouldn't be acting for their own benefit.

As for the OP issue, yes it's unfair and it's very much geared towards getting home care from the daughters.

From an estate planning point of view, some of the advice on here is awful. It's clearly not a true gift for IHT purposes (as all benefit has been retained by the parents) and the council WILL be all over it in relation to care home fees as there's a good chance due to age etc that they'd consider it a deprivation issue.

If there is a decently sized asset in question and the council consider that fees are payable by the individual, if the fees aren't paid, then the council can petition for bankruptcy. At that point it's hunting season on the asset and the Insolvency Act is very much on the side of creditors.

@GnomeDePlume I was hesitant to write my will; it forces us to think about a time when we won't be here which isn't easy. But like you, I was glad when I did it and it was actually a very positive experience. Dh and I have very simple wills, leaving everything to the surviving partner and when they die, everything shared equally between our children.

@BettyCarver we are now second time around on will making. Made our first when DCs were small. We then remade our wills a few years ago when DCs were young adults. I'm glad we did as rereading our wills made me realise that they were well out of date.

We are being very open with DCs. There will be no nasty surprises.

This openness is important to me. My DM is playing secret squirrels with hers. If what I have been told turns out to be true (bequests to all and sundry, a small complicated trust fund) then DBs and I as executors and trustees (if that is also what she has finally written) will be left with a nightmare to execute but no actual benefit.

I try not to think about it too often unless my blood pressure needs raising!

@Pazuzu the trustees are also beneficiaries, just to complicate matters. In any case, the properties and money related to the trust are now gone so even if a solicitor did confirm that their actions were illegal in some way I wouldn't get the money.

It isn't fair but it's not worth the headspace. We diligently worked and saved and are careful with budgeting and are therefore deemed not to need support from the in-laws whereas siblings who partied, spent money on personal growth adventures got massive 'loans' to help them on there way.

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.
So which is it?
Are you only expecting something because someone else might be getting it?

My parents were Joint Tennants as is more the "norm" for married couples.

A few years back they changed it to Tennants in Common and each left their 50% split between my sister and l.

Dad then died less then a year later and so now Mum owns 50% and my sister/ I own 25% each. We are on the deeds.

The difficulty l personally had was when my XH left and we got a divorce as l actually owned 25% of my Mum's house and he was entitled to some of my "assets".

@Broccoli123 my sympathies

This is why I think complicated wills are a minefield. They set out with all good intentions but the result ends up being the opposite of the intention.

Wills get old and out of date. I know that ours written when DCs were small were totally inappropriate once DCs were adult. We had identified one of my DBs as responsible for our DCs in the event of our deaths. Now that he is a middle aged man I am not sure I would even want him to be responsible for our cat!

Thanks @GnomeDePlume. It's an awful feeling knowing your own family have completely screwed you over. My life would have been very different if I'd inherited directly rather than in the way it has been done.

Neither B nor C will be alive by the time I get whatever is left, which will likely be nothing, and they have both done very well out of it.

I wouldn't mind if it was their money. They'd be entitled to do whatever they liked with it. But it wasn't and was left with the intention of benefitting all of us.

@Broccoli123 I think your experience exemplifies why it is so dangerous to assume in a will that X 'will do right' by Y. If you want Y to benefit then you have to write that down.

Wills get written and then tend to languish often for decades. It is easy to say that people should re-write their wills as circumstances change but often they dont realise out out of date their wills have become. They remember the intention rather than the detail.