Should inheritance always be split equally amount children?

[Purpleturtle45]

Should you always split inheritance equally between children or should you adjust it according to their individual circumstances like their income and whether they will get inheritance from their in-laws etc?

YANBU-equally is the only fair way
YANBU-take circumstances into account and adjust accordingly

Equally unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. For example, a friend of mine was one of four brothers. He lived nearest his Mum, saw her a lot, and was a successful barrister. When she was 80 she was run over by a drugged up driver. Horrendous injuries. She eventually went home and my friend cared for her. As her care needs got greater - incontinence, unable to walk etc, he gave up work to look after her. She lasted another 10 years. His siblings would visit but never did respite care (2 doctors). He even took his Mum across Europe by train for the wedding of one of her grandchildren. All this was massively at expense of his own mental health.

when she died, she left her flat plus a significant amount of £ to my friend, plus another very large amount to be divided between them all. I always felt this was her way of compensating him for loss of career and home. One of the others was so cross he wouldn’t go to her funerals. Then he got the others to start complaining to my friend who at that point was in bits at death of his Mum. It took some grown up grandchildren doing some straight talking to stop a court case, as well as stopping my friend giving up his inheritance .

so whilst instinct says equal, it’s not always that clear cut.

I think it should be in conversation with them if it isn’t going to be equal. Everyone should be happy with whatever the arrangement is so that you don’t just dump a lifetime of baggage on your children once you’re gone.

For example, my mum and stepdad have done their will (last I heard, because I’m executor) so that it’s 70% to me, 15% each to my two stepsisters. We are all NC with them. I am by far the most financially secure. But of the 3 of us, even though they have no relationship with any of us, they hate me less than the others.

I think it’s a nasty spiteful thing to do. I don’t actually know what will happen in the end. They may cut us all off. I certainly don’t really want any inheritance. I doubt the others do either. It leaves me in a tricky situation though having to fulfil their wishes which benefit me, but are just mean.

I don’t think it necessarily always has to be equal but I don’t agree with the reasons you’ve given for it not being equal.

You’ve said about other inheritances from in-laws, I definitely wouldn’t take that into account as even the most solid marriages can end, meaning they won’t get that presumed inheritance if they divorce and no longer have those in-laws. Also the in-laws might lose that money/spend it all on care/leave it all to charity so it can’t be relied on.

Similarly with income- one child might lose all their wealth one day whilst another who is currently on a low income might end up being a lot better off in future either though their own circumstances or by eg marrying into some money.

On the whole it’s best split evenly, the only circumstances where I’d consider it differently is where relationships are difficult- eg one child treats parents nastily, never makes any effort to communicate or visit etc while the other is always helping out. But even then it would have to be fairly extreme not to split things evenly.

Equally… you never know how their circumstances may change after you’re gone

That’s lovely 💛

Are you the parent or the child OP?

I have a son in his 20s married, owns multiple properties and very successful.

I have another 17 who is developmentally a bit slow. We have never sought to have him "diagnosed" with anything but if we were that type of person he probably could be. He may well simply just be at the low end of normal intellectually. However he is unlikely to ever be self sufficient.

And I have a daughter 12 who is beautiful and very smart and sociable. She will be OK in life but will need looking after until that time.

I plan to provide according to need, and my older son understands this as he has no need of extra money.

If the relationship is equal with all children then sure, split it equally. But if you've one child who makes more effort to maintain the relationship, does more to help you etc then I think its fair to reflect that in your will.

I also think considering things like whether someone has potential to earn a decent wage due to things like disability, their partner having fucked off and left them alone with 5 kids etc is sensible.

Voted incorrectly

GC do visit. They are adults. It is my bitter sibling who doesnt bother much. And I dont blame him.

DM made this change to her will fairly late on. She didnt tell anyone other than one sibling (who I suspect encouraged it).

Also trusts dont work like that. My siblings and I are executors of the will and trustees. We are the ones stuck with sorting out the mess. I expect GCs will do what they can to help but the responsibility sits with my siblings and me.

Even the sibling who encouraged the trust nonesense now I suspect regrets it. Having a trust fund to play with may have seemed like fun. Now after 18 months of hospital visits, care home visits, the rapid descent into dementia, my sibling and I are burnt out.

It's difficult to say what "should always" be done in relation to someone else.
Generally id say equally but there may be circumstances why someone may choose not to.
i think the answer is to discuss if possible in your life time as explanation often helps solve later repercussions.

Should be split equally. My Mum has told my sisters and I that any money from her will be equally split between us. One of my sisters is much ( much) better off than the rest of us, I still have a morgtage on my small flat and will have to work past retirement to pay it off, and my other sister rents, but I still think it's fair that we all get the same amount. I dont want there to be any bad feelings between any of us.

Instinct is to always say split equally and up to now me and my siblings have been treated equally. If one of us have had help at any point the others got the same. However, one sibling is massively ungrateful and entitled (somehow both at the same time). They are very judgemental of anybody with money. For example, when parent is trying to explain that they have winnings from premium bonds that they have set up for them they won’t discuss it saying parents are only interested in money (not true but parents frustrated). Parent now feels conflicted with how to divide inheritance. They don’t want to see any siblings go without but feel like it would almost be a burden on sibling who complains about money and has been so rude and ungrateful.

Equally unless servere disability,

I have one with learning difficulties, I can’t remember the exact terminology but her share is in some kind of trust so that the others can help her with it. They have Power of Attorney also.

Unless you have a valid personal reason it should be equal. If not you will leave bad feeling and confusion in your wake. What a sad legacy.

To those saying a child who does more for the parents should get more, our situation-
Sister 1 lives abroad
We live 200 miles away
Sister 2 still lives in home town so takes iLs to apponitments, does shopping for them etc.

Geographically it just isn't possible for the other 2 siblings to do as much.so I don't see why they should receive less as a result.

Equally unless there is a lifelong serious disability to consider.

My point is the parents life savings could make a huge difference to the DGC if the parents are useless with money.

The older generation could consider writing their wills wisely and consider skipping a generation.

It's not nice when you read threads with someone who is trying to figure out what to do with an inheritance when its not enough for them to buy property outright. They can't get a mortgage either.

So they are expected to use it for every day living expenses. Meaning in turn they can't leave anything to their kids. The only way for young people to get on the housing ladder in most of the country is to inherit or be given a parent handout.

Sometimes it feels like the system is designed to keep people down and stop them being able to get out the trap.

Likewise if money was equal and you didn't need the inheritance? Would you give some to a poorer sibling?

Agreed. It's not always geographically possible to be near a parent. Shouldn't be penalised because of this.

But if you've one child who makes more effort to maintain the relationship, does more to help you etc then I think its fair to reflect that in your will.

But that just drives a wedge between siblings after death. If one child made more effort, then their reward should be in your lifetime and from the benefits of the close mutual relationship.

Uneven money after death is just going to emphasise the differences between the relationships. Surely their relationship with each other after your death is more important than your relationship with the favoured child?

Freedom to choose is a two way street though. Presumably you expect your parents to respect your choice to live where you do, thus aren't they entitled to the same respect in their choice (ie choosing where their money goes?).

Essentially my question is - is it fair to expect an equitable approach from parents whilst not expecting an equitable approach to parents?

I think the caring side is very complicated.

My SIL will do more - not much needed ATM - for my PIL.

However, PIL moved internationally to follow her, this put them much further away from us and their other sons.

They have done a lot to support SIL over the years, saves her loads on childcare and DIY, she is hands down their favourite.

I don't feel particularly bad for her that she will do the most of the caring and I don't feel she is owed more inheritance as a result.

I think what I am trying to say is - often the child that does the caring does so because they have had a better relationship with the parents in the first place. It's then even more of a slap in the face if the inheritance makes that even more clear

The golden child theory is a contentious issue, because no doubt it exists in some families.
I can only speak for my own family, my own parents and siblings, and the favoured child assertion is entirely a cop out for the disinterested siblings. The difference in approach is, and has always been, the approach to parents. Not the approach from.