Inheritance straight to GC, skipping childless DC

[Shuk]

How would you feel if your parents left money to your nieces & nephews but not you or your siblings, and you don't have DC, but have possibly had more financial support as an adult than your siblings (though not as much as their dc will inherit)

YABU - no one is entitled to anything
YANBU - this isn't fair and likely to cause considerable upset

For context it's not my parents, and I have DC who would benefit. I think this is hugely unfair.

@GattoFantastico

The self serving greed of those posters who have an issue with the concept of parents leaving equal shares to their own children is staggering

And exemplifies perfectly why the grandparents might not trust them to pass on the wealth quickly enough for it to make a difference to their lives

@AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken I think you've misunderstood my post entirely

If you think your children are arseholes who will be cruel to their children then obviously that's different.

In the absence of any other information though (you have several children and one of them is childless and the others aren't), I think it's pretty much guaranteed to lead to hurt and resentment.

It’s up to them where their money goes.

[quote GattoFantastico]@AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken I think you've misunderstood my post entirely [/quote]
Ah my mistake!
I thought you were commenting on the greed of people who would begrudge their children inheriting life changing amounts of money instead of themselves.

@WeAreTheHeroes

Great way to cause a huge family rift. As the childless DC I would potentially feel as though I mattered less to the person leaving me out of their will.

Better to give each DC the same, smaller sum and each grandchild a bigger sum on the basis their generation may benefit more from the financial assistance.

Totally this. It says clearly that the childless person is thought less of. I’ve been that person, it hurts.

This of you saying that you won’t benefit personally if your children inherit large sums from their GP ( and your childless siblings get nothing) - I can only assume one of two things;

1. That you are so rich and have millions so eg £100k or £200k is loose change to you.

1. That you are so poor you can save nothing for your own children and will never able to give them a penny towards their education or to help them onto the housing ladder.

Because for everyone in between - the parents who are saving up to help their own kids - their children inheriting a large sum makes a huge amount of difference to the parents.

If your child has £20k a year you won’t need to support them through university / apprenticeships / pay for driving lessons / buy a car = more cash for you.

If they have £100k towards a first home they don’t need help from the bank of mum and dad = more cash for you.

They can pay their own way on family holidays = more cash for you

It’s completely disingenuous to claim that money to your kids doesn't benefit you. You are fooling no one here, let alone your own siblings who know you.

Everyone knows that if your childless sibling suddenly had 6 kids you’d decide that giving to each GC was unfair.

I find the idea of skipping a generation bizarre. Your children can always decide to give the money straight to their kids if they want but I think for many adult children being excluded from a will feels like a rejection and parents should treat their children equally

I'm less worried by my DM deciding to bypass her DCs to benefit her DGCs. What is bothering me is that it is likely that she will be leaving her estate in trust with my DBs and me as trustees. The DGCs are all adults. Only one is likely to need the protection of a trust (DD of DB2 will never live independently). The trust is the brainchild of DB1 because he wants to play 'trust fund king' with the whole of DM's estate.

@GnomeDePlume

I'm less worried by my DM deciding to bypass her DCs to benefit her DGCs. What is bothering me is that it is likely that she will be leaving her estate in trust with my DBs and me as trustees. The DGCs are all adults. Only one is likely to need the protection of a trust (DD of DB2 will never live independently). The trust is the brainchild of DB1 because he wants to play 'trust fund king' with the whole of DM's estate.

Persuade her to set them up as separate trusts, he can play trust fund king with his own kids trust, you can dissolve yours.

lewisnedas.co.uk/newsroom/blog/wills-trusts-and-probate-law/how-to-terminate-a-trust.html

Inheritance is a gift, not a given.

One big issue I have with skipping a generation is that, depending in the ages of the children and GC, some GC might well receive nothing at all I’d they are ‘born too late’….

My parents Wills were written before all of the DGC were born, but there was simple legal wording to cover the arrival of future GC, so that they wouldn't be excluded.

Having said that, we all need to remember that a Will isn't a document that's made once and left - it should be amended as people grow older and family structures change.

But that only works if all of the future DGC have arrived by the time of the death of the DGP. Once the person has died, their estate has to be settled within a reasonable time and distributed to all of the people currently alive (possibly including any conceived but as-yet-unborn children).

Even if you try to make allowance for future DGC, the executors can't keep all of the money locked away untouched in a holding account until all of the deceased's adult children are physically incapable of having any further DGC (of the deceased); especially if the deceased had sons, who could theoretically still father additional DGC until the day that they die.

Much more straightforward to leave it to your own children - that way, you can be certain that, once you have died and the will comes into force, you cannot possibly have any further children of your own (unless you die and leave a widow who is already pregnant - in which case the executors would only need to wait a maximum of 9 months before being able to officially finalise the estate in accordance with the will).

No-one is entitled, however
Split equally between DC and then they split it with their own DC

Sorry, you are incorrect.

Leaving your main residence to offspring (including grandchildren but not "anyone else") increases the IHT limit to £500k on some sort of sliding scale.

www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax

"If you give away your home to your children (including adopted, foster or stepchildren) or grandchildren your threshold can increase to £500,000."

My apologies, @VanGoghsDog - I stand corrected. That must be quite a recent amendment, though? However, although I personally am in favour of it, it does seem a little odd to have a 'get-out clause' by leaving everything to your children or grandchildren, when that must already be the norm for the vast majority of people anyway. If you aren't leaving your money to your DC/DGC or a registered charity, who else are loads of people leaving their money to?!

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

Sorry, you are incorrect.

Leaving your main residence to offspring (including grandchildren but not "anyone else") increases the IHT limit to £500k on some sort of sliding scale.

www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax

"If you give away your home to your children (including adopted, foster or stepchildren) or grandchildren your threshold can increase to £500,000."

My apologies, @VanGoghsDog - I stand corrected. That must be quite a recent amendment, though? However, although I personally am in favour of it, it does seem a little odd to have a 'get-out clause' by leaving everything to your children or grandchildren, when that must already be the norm for the vast majority of people anyway. If you aren't leaving your money to your DC/DGC or a registered charity, who else are loads of people leaving their money to?!

Not very recent, about ten years!

It's not leaving money that increases the band, only leaving your main residence ("family home" as the press refers to it, emotively).

The downside is that offspring try not to put elderlies into care homes as to do so they often have to sell the home.

Say elderly has £100k cash and a home worth £400k.

Under current rules all of that would be free of IHT if the home is passed down the line.

If they sell the home and have £500k, then only £325k is free of IHT. Barring any transferred nil rate hand from a pre deceased spouse.

Unpleasant offspring already try to keep elderlies in their home to prevent the cost of a care home. But with this rule they have an added incentive to keep the home to have that higher nil rate band.

(It's not quite as simple as I have laid out, there's a sliding scale, but too complex to go into,)

Not very recent, about ten years!

That's recent to me!!!

@VanGoghsDog thank you.

It throws a spanner in the family inheritance / planning works when one child doesn't go on to have children.

Why?

My parents attitude to my own DH is completely different - he's the father of their grandchildren, his link to them is that much more direct.

But the same thing could happen - your marriage could break down or if you died before your DH and he remarried.

Sometimes I wish those feeling entitled to an inheritance would discover the whole lot is going to Greenpeace. I'd far rather my pasrents blew everything on travel and having a bloody good time than worried about passing money on. They earned it, I didn't

Spectacular missing of the point. The OP isn’t asking if it’s fair for parents to spend their own money. She’s asking if it’s fair to disinherit one of their children in favour of the other children’s children.

Psychologically (for the disinherited child) the two are entirely different. Anyone who says they wouldn’t be hurt to be the sole disinherited child is a liar or lacks imagination.

If you aren't leaving your money to your DC/DGC or a registered charity, who else are loads of people leaving their money to

In part of our extended family, a child free uncle and aunt leaving their house to siblings, nieces, nephews.

Psychologically (for the disinherited child) the two are entirely different. Anyone who says they wouldn’t be hurt to be the sole disinherited child is a liar or lacks imagination.

Well quite @MissLucyEyelesbarrow

I think that's the point that several PP are missing. I saw this happen in my own family - a close relative was left out of their parent's will. Three adult children included (including one who was an informally "adopted" child); one excluded. With no explanation, no reason.

What was really sad was to watch someone who had hitherto felt quite secure in their parent's love, and spoke very lovingly and admiringly about the parent, completely re-assess their whole relationship. The will left my relative wondering about their parent's attitude to them, and love for them, and what my relative said & thought about their parent in subsequent years changed. And the parent wasn't alive to talk it through.

We suspect it was because the parent considered my relative to have "married well" (they did) and not need whatever the parent could leave them. In truth the value of the estate wasn't much - so it was symbolic. That was the real kicker.

Fortunately the other siblings immediately responded to what they saw as an injustice, and re-divided the sum four ways, instead of three. That was the only good thing that came out of the situation.

It made me determined never to leave my estate other than completely equally to my family, whatever I think of any of my family members' needs.

That's sad @LaChanticleer.

I can't believe that families don't sit and talk these things through. To say to the excluded DD 'we love you equally, but you don't need our money. How would you feel if we split our Estate between your three siblings?'

That would open up the conversation for the DD to say 'it would hurt me massively', which would give the parents chance to re-assess. Even if things were left, the DD would know - if not agree - with the reasoning behind the decision. Nothing to do with love.

My DP spoke to us about leaving their Estate to our DC as - in their words - we didn't need it. That's quite true. Of course, we would have used it, but by them taking this action, their GC in their 20's were able to put significant deposits down on homes in London. It is referred to as 'DGP's money', and they have an implicit understanding that it was hard earned, and not to be frittered.

We were fortunate. DB and I both have two DC, and they are (to date!) all pretty sensible. But the big thing is that it was discussed and understood by us all at the time the Wills were written. Talk people!

@diddl

I you inherited money & say gave your kid(s) a house deposit, could this later be classed as deprivation of assets or is there a way to protect against that?

There's no time limit on how far councils can go back when determining if deprivation of assets is applicable for your care costs, it all depends on their rules of how they determine if someone is deliberately disposing of assets to reduce their liability for care costs; so yes, they potentially could.