Should two adult children be treated differently re inheritance, because one has children and the other one does not, by choice or not?

[fungipie]

I would argue that they should both be treated the same.

In my family the children tend not to inherit- it goes to the grandchildren. Mainly because the children have managed to buy houses and had the opportunity to do so- and the grandchildren need a hand to get on the ladder.

My will says the same- it's for the next generation not for my children- whom are little (under 8) and are already set up for life with houses already sorted for them (thanks to our tenants)...

The children should inherit the same amount as each other; the grandchildren could inherit in their own right.

If it were me making a will, I think the percentages would depend on ages. For instance, I wouldn't leave a large sum to 60 year olds who've built up assets, and not much to 25 year olds who are starting out. But if my children were 35 and the grandchildren were 5, the grandchildren would only get a token amount as I'd figure the children needed it more.

Yes, this comes up a lot on these threads. And sometimes it's about the money itself, but often it's about a display of favouritism for one which leaves the other feeling worthless and unloved.

But money doesn't always have to go to the deceased children . What if the children are awful people?

Money can go to anyone the deceased has named in their will. I didn't know what was in my parent's will until very recently. She could have left money to her neices (who were wonderful with her), any friends who were still left alive, her cleaner, her carers, a charity, a number of charities ...

Inheritances don't just go to children.

Why would it hurt to be treated the same as your brother? Was he hurt too? Inheriting from you isn't the same as it will be a generation later. Most grandchildren are at an age to benefit more from an inheritance.

But if I inherited a large sum tomorrow it would help my DC. My siblings DC and my bro in laws DCs are at /approaching the uni stage while mine are younger. If we inherited tomorrow we would pay off the mortgage than save the rest for uni fees and or future deposits etc or if it was a smaller amount just pay off the mortgage then save the money we would have used for mortgage payments for the DCs future.
If a parent decided to leave there money to my siblings kids because they happen to be at prime benefiting from money age I wouldn't think that fair. Likewise if (fingers crossed) a parent lives for many more years and the dNs are already home owners by then I wouldn't expect them to be cut out in favour of my DC because they happen to be the right age at the time.

This sounds like a good system.

My Mum suggested a 5 way split in that brother 1 would get 1/5, and me and brother 2 would get 2/5 each based on how many children we had. Me and brother 2 said no. It would be 1/3 each or bypass us and give each gc 1/5 each.
That said, I’d rather they enjoy their retirement spending as much as they want now.

I would always do 50 /50 to my children.

Maybe a smaller sum to grandchildren.

It’s up to the parents to provide for their kids, and in the end (for example) the remaining money my parents left to my child free sibling will be left in turn to my kids as the nieces and nephews.

Yes but they should imo- if you have disowned children that’s a diff thing but honestly I don’t understand leaving money to people aside from your children- unless we’re talking millions of pounds and a few k won’t make a difference

Disowned children??

On that other thread, the sister was involved in choosing the home and knew the cost and the amounts left in her dad's estate. So unless you're suggesting that OP should have sat her down and explained numbers like she was a child, she knew.

What I'm saying is she probably didn't know about the bad investments aswell. In the end I felt that whilst I'd give the sister something she shouldn't outright expect the whole lot.

100% agree with an equal split of the majority of an estate between children (unless special needs). Otherwise, so much potential for a rift and unhappiness.

My sibling has children and I don't. There was never any doubt that my parents would split their estate equally between the two of us. My sibling's children will inherit from me and I hope to help them out when they are at Uni/young adults.

What’s quite interesting about threads like this is that it all feels a bit like an Austen novel. And this is surely because of the dislocation in the last 40 years between earnings and house prices, so that we end up having these debates that sound like something out of the early 19th C, because inheritance, for many people under 35-40, has become the only route into home ownership (apart from an advantageous marriage, that is….)

It should be equal and fair

Personally my kids get equal, if either one of them has kids, they can choose if they want to share with kids. However, I’d probably leave grandkids some aswell. But that’s just me

Splitting equally between your kids is the easiest and least contentious thing to do. If you gave birth/adopted or whatever X number of kids then you divide your estate between them, equally. No one can be hurt or confused by that.

I can't imagine trying to work out the relative value of each of my kids.

If some of your kids turn out nicer or better than the others isn't that a little bit down to you. You raised them after all. One of my siblings is a bit of a shit but he's still my Mums child. She doesn't like him particularly but he's still her child. Leaving him my Mothers will is the simplest thing to do. My mum is a real softie and couldn't do something as horrible as cutting someone out of a will. I support her completely even though I really dislike that one sibling.

In answer to your question of course upon death siblings should be treat equally. Most parents likely word the will to be split equally between the siblings and if one sibling happened to pass away, their share would be split between any children they may have. This is fair.

The other thread was about gifting money while living with the intention of the sister gaining upon the parents death. Most people are aware that circumstance can change and I don't believe in that instance the OP should have been responsible for her father's decision.

I was on the side of the original poster on the inheritance thread. Her dad chose to gift her children a private education while still living on the premise that the sibling inherited the same upon his death.

Unfortunately due to unexpected reasons there was no money left in the estate leaving the sibling with nothing. What if the OP did not have 150k savings, what would be expected then?

Personally I would be happy that my parent was able to fulfil their own dreams while living and if that meant me being at a disadvantage, I would be happy for them.

This said, I personally would treat my own children the same. If I gifted 1 child's household 100k, I would do the same for the other at the same time and it would be their choice how to use it.

It may sound hypocritical but I could not deny the joy it would have brought my parents to do something that meant so much to them while still living.

I'll definitely leave an equal amount to each dc. It causes hurt and drives a wedge between siblings when people favour one. However in the private fee thread, the father never intended to cut the other daughter (with less money and support) out of the will. He intended her to receive an equal amount. So I can see why she's hurt by it. Especially as the op said she could afford fees for two kids but accepted money for 3 sets of fees. It would have been fairer if op had only accepted half of the 300K and the sister had received the other half. The op is OK with that though. She'll just cut the sister out so she doesn't have to think about it.

We had a similar dilemma.
Two sons.
One son very rich indeed, five million pound house (paid for), seven figure salary, 10 million + investments. No children, coming up to retirement himself.
Younger son, ordinary, well paid (ish) lifestyle, three teenage children.

Originally, their dads will left all money (about 250k) split equally between the three grandchildren with a small (same) amount to each son. This was felt to be wrong as affectively cutting rich son out so was changed to split the estate equally between the two sons.
I think this was probably the right thing to do (I'm the poor sons wife) even though we are really going to struggle with uni costs over the next few years.

As people on average live longer than they used to, grandchildren are typically adults rather than children that you might leave a trust fund to. I’m child-free but my parents told me recently they’re splitting any inheritance (not that there would be much) 4 ways between me, my brother and my 2 nieces. Sounds cool to me.

But the minute it starts being dished out to one sibling with a promise of it all being right in the will ... Knowing there are so many ways that just won't happen...

It's pure shit for the sibling getting nowt.

Another example: one sibling spends all their money and then some. Parents constantly bail this one out. It's all added up but ultimately there is likely to be none left to divide fairly or not.
The other sibling might feel aggrieved the parents funded the others lifestyle.

They not mutually exclusive though.

They’re not mutually exclusive though