Brother has found parents’ wills

[ChorltonCreamery]

My mother tripped over a few days ago. Initially all seemed fine. Friend brought her home but the next day she went to a walk in. It was felt that she might need a procedure on her wrist.

What I only found out yesterday was that Dad rang one of my brothers to go through his desk to find this policy they have, a medical insurance that kicks in if NHS waiting list is too long. In the process of doing this he found their wills and read them.

Yesterday Brother asked if I could go round to his but I couldn’t as we are away. This afternoon sister texts me to call her back, it turns our parents have divided their estate into four. Three quarters between brother, sister and me with a quarter going to other brother’s child(ren) with us three acting as trustees.

Brother 2 is not included, we think because sister in law has two children from previous marriage and there has been drama from them.

Brother wants me and sister to meet for a chat about everything.

He says that the wills were not in a marked file and he had to go through lots of stuff in order to find the insurance.

I don’t know what to think, or what I am meant to think. Sisters annoyed with brother for even telling us.

.

I get it, too. The GPs don't want their son and GCs to lose half the inheritance if he and his wife divorce, or those GCs to potentially lose their inheritance entirely if he predeceases his wife.

I still think it should have been discussed though.

You are both so nosey and outrageously opinionated to read a person's Will and to comment as if your parents do not have ultimate say as to where they leave their hard earned assets.

Possibly all their money will be spent on their own care home payments and retirement holidays.

You should think of yourselves as very lucky to be left any inheritance at all. Your brother's children are also lucky.

You could, without suspicion, request that, if your parents intend on leaving you anything, you would prefer them to leave your share straight to your children instead. That way your little family will pay tax once, not twice.

You would usually word it to include DC born after the will is written but before the death, if you do it properly. But cannot easily allow for dc born after the death, which of course is not an issue if the money goes through the parents rather than direct to the dc.

there was story on here many years ago where someone’s step mother inherited everything and left it to her son completely ignoring her husbands children.

Something similar happened to a friend and her brother: everything went to stepmother and will pass on to the child of the father's second marriage. Friend and her DB got nothing, not even a token few quid or a personal item to remember him by.

The estate was worth north of £5m, too, so there was plenty to go round!

The testator must have wanted that outcome though. It’s perfectly achievable to have a will that uses your iht allowances / protects the surviving spouse during their lifetime / ensures care home protection within the law / ensures your own children inherit on the second death. I do these all the time. The testator just has to get off their bottom and instruct someone to actually do it! Smart couples do this at the time of the second marriage.

Nail on the head. Proper planning and thinking things through.

The trustee was the Solicitor in my Nanna’s case and the Solicitor gave my uncle my cousin’s money who spent it on a trip to Disneyland
Which was completely the right thing to do her dad didn’t last much longer my uncle - The cousin would never have wanted to miss out on that holiday with her father.

will’s bollocks they should just be split between children and that’s that, you’re dead. Forget about the drama.

Sorry but that is incorrect. You can be a trustee and a beneficiary of a trust. It is in fact very common in family trusts.

Have you ever acted as a Trustee? The whole point of a being a Trustee is to balance the needs of the present with any future potential needs. That means taking account of the fact that further children may be born. Usually the income from these trusts is used for the benefit of current children, with the capital being preserved until the children are old enough to inherit, by which time, presumably the brother is unlikely to have more children (although it still can happen).

The Will is worded to include any future GC of the brother. It is normal practice to make allowances for unborn children in a trust document.

Nobody knows what? That the only reason for not asking them about being trustees is because they don't want the excluded son knowing?

It's the only good reason I can think of. Suggest another.

No one knows why they appointed 3 siblings to be trustees without asking, why they skipped DB2, could be because of the step kids but no one knows.
If DB2 asked for it to be this way or not, if he knows or not etc.

The only people who know everything about the will are OP's parents.

Can't suggest anything as I'm not psychic.

That's lovely, but did he have step kids who were excluded from the trip?

Also, rightly or wrongly, the GPs possibly don't want the step kids benefitting.

In this case, DB2 would have to include the step kids.

It wouldn't sit well to eg, spend the inheritance going to Disneyland with his biological child and leaving step kids behind.

Most posts on here about a mum wanting to do so, would be met with support, whereas a man deciding to treat just his child usually leads to LTB.

I'm not asking you to be psychic. I'm asking that you suggest one additional possible good reason, if you want to say that my assumption that there is only one is unwarranted.

Surely it's up to the people making the Will to decide who to leave the money to.
There is no rule about how the money should be divided.
We don't know why the parents have divided the Estate we they have, but they will have their reasons and presumably they are important enough to them to do as they have done.

How awful of them

Had similar situation with FIL, didn't like the fact I was divorcee, adopted children etc He made it so neither me nor sister in law could possibly inherit anything and he also cut out all his grandchildren in the process to make sure my adopted children got nothing. Two sons tried to reason with him (he openly showed them the will) but he was adamant he wasn't changing it as was entirely his right, his money his choice etc Laughable really as I ended up being the one who cared for him till the end (unpaid, did it as I felt sorry for him and did it out of a sense of duty). One valuable lesson he taught me, was that ill never do what he did, I'll never cut out any DIL /SIL I may have in the future and I'll treat all grandchildren the same whether blood related or not. I've at least got that to thank him for.

No it dosnt.

my mil died when she had 1 grandchild the trust set up benefits her children and their children, there are now 7 grand children, all entitled to the trust. The trust has been specially set up for helping all children/grandchildren when they need it. Anyone can ask for money from the trust, the 3 trustees have the discretion to say yes or no. The only people not entitled to anything are the non biological grandchildren and FIL child he had with new wife. Had the money not been placed in a trust he would have got it, his new with and child would have also been entitled to it also.

Given all the children are now adults and look after themselves, it’s been agreed that they only access it at times of need rather than everyday use and what’s left is for the grandchildren’s future. No arguments, no discord, just grown ups having civil reasonable conversations and working out what’s best for everyone as mil would have wanted.

That’s a very different situation in which all siblings and grandchildren are being treated equally, everything is left in trust (which if you read my posts is precisely what I suggested much earlier in the thread because the OP’s parent’s plan doesn’t protect family assets from divorce and remarriage in any case) and has been transparently discussed with all family members in advance (again, a point I mentioned in my posts yesterday).

Not sure why you’d object to my posts and then give an example of an arrangement very like what I was suggesting the OP’s parents should have done instead of their spiteful and unpleasant plan that will create huge problems for other family members.

what amazes me, and it’s something I only ever came across on MN as I grew up extremely poor so never really knew anyone who had money to leave until I met my husbands family and they are WC to MC so started with nothing and any wealth they made but still a WC attitude. Anyway it amazes me the complete sense of entitlement people have in expecting an inheritance from anyone including their parents.

To me, if you don’t understand that the person or people that have died can decide what they do with their own money then you are extremely entitled.

I don’t know, maybe it’s me, I’m the scape goat/black sheep child with a narc parent so have always been treat less than and from a very young age never expected anything from anybody that makes me feel this way 🤷‍♀️

It is possible legally but creates huge conflict of interest issues that other trustees have to manage and can lead to extremely expensive legal disputes if trustees do not agree so in practice no sensible person arranges their affairs in this manner; for practical purposes, it is not an appropriate option even though technically legally allowed. As I said in my first posts on the thread, the OP’s parents have made horrendous decisions and should be advised to go to see an independent tax advisor who can structure their assets appropriately to avoid them ripping the relationships of subsequent generations of their family apart in order to (it appears) try to achieve an aim (protecting family assets from remarriages) that their current wills per the OP’s posts will not achieve in any case; hence me suggesting a family trust in my posts yesterday.

It’s you. I’m sorry for your experience with your family (mine was similar, so I do understand why it’s hard for you to understand) but UK law and culture is an anomaly in this manner. In most countries it is illegal to disinherit a child. In most cultures it is seen as a duty to provide as much as you can for the next generation and better their life chances. In most loving families it is instinctive that this is what you want to do and the idea of using money as a weapon or distributing inheritance based on your moral or personal judgement of each child’s life would be considered abhorrent, and the consequences for the family left behind would be understood so people wouldn’t even consider it.

That’s not to say anybody “expects” an inheritance, simply that if there is one, decent people split it equally and it would be considered shocking to do otherwise. If there are concerns about spouses, that is what trusts are for.

There was no discussion, FIL and MIL made the decision themselves with legal and financial alive, mil died very young and unexpected when only one of their children was an adult, they never told any of their children what they were planning as even the adult who was only 19yo, yes a very young parent at the time.

I disagreed with the post I quoted, which said:

”How can that work though? If your parents die, then money starts being distributed from the trust for the existing child, then another one comes along later, and it’s unknown how many there will be, how can trustees decide what is a fair amount to distribute to the existing one for whatever purpose in the meantime?
It places trustees in an impossible position (even if you all decline to be the trustees and someone else is willing to take up the position, which is not guaranteed if you parents have not prearranged and specified these people as a backup).
It will create immense discord between your disinherited brother and the rest of you, and likely between any children the other three of you have and the disinherited brother’s children as well.
It’s a terrible idea, and doesn’t protect family assets in any case because any of the other three of you could divorce and remarry. Your grandchildren might also do the same so the money might go to non-blood relatives later in the family tree.
It’s nonsensical and deeply unpleasant, very controlling and very unfair to all of you and shows that your parents either have little financial understanding (so need professional advice) or are very unpleasant people. I don’t know which is the case, but clearly if they are decent people they haven’t thought this through at all or they wouldn’t be doing it. But I’m doubtful of that, to be honest, otherwise they would have been open about these plans before drafting a will. These are matters that should all be very transparent within families so that subsequent generations aren’t left to deal with the kind of mess that this would create.

Yes, I have.

As stated already, not best practice and can lead to some extremely messy and expensive legal disputes. I have seen this play out many times. I’m glad it worked out in your case but it’s not a sensible way to structure affairs even though technically allowed.

It was me that first suggested on the thread that the OP’s parents should take advice from an independent tax adviser and put a family trust in place because their current plans do not protect the family assets in any case, which the OP believed to be their aim.