inheritance - what's fair, what's right?

[ForGladOtter]

Hypothetical (not really) situation and I just would like others' take on it:

Two siblings inherit their parents' property which is now for sale. Sibling A is married with two children and is comfortably off. Sibling B is married with one child and is less financially well off. Sibling A would like the proceeds of the sale to be split three ways between the grandchildren. Sibling B would prefer a 50/50 split with the sibling. Sibling A thinks Sibling B is depriving the grandchildren of an equal share. Sibling B feels they are having to give up some their entitlement in favour of Sibling A's children. (Sibling B feels they also have more need of the financial windfall than Sibling A. It is acknowledged that their own circumstance is not the responsibility of the other. But it does feed into how they feel about the request for the 3-way split).

I would love to hear others' thoughts on this.

Unless otherwise stated or verbal wishes known by the family. It’s 50/50 split and the sibling can choose to share their share of the proceeds with their child / children if they so wish.

Which sibling are you, @OP?

‘Ownership was transferred’

Does this mean that the siblings now own it 50:50? Or does the surviving parent still own a share?

I assume that inheritance tax (need to survive 7y after making a gift to avoid this) and deprivation of assets (must not give away an asset that could finance reasonably foreseeable care needs with no time limit) issues were considered because otherwise there might not be an inheritance for anyone.

If siblings now legally own it 50:50 then there is an end to it isn’t it?

It depends a on the will.

it must be divided according to the terms. If the will states 50:50 to the siblings, that’s what they get.

if sibling A wants to divide between 3 she can ask sibling b to draw up a variation. If sibling b disagrees, nothing sibling a can do, it goes as per the will.

Yes inherit is wrong then, nobody is inheriting anything and if ownership is now 50/50 between the siblings then even the parents wishes aren’t really relevant legally (although morally they should be taken into account).

Who is currently living in the house if the parent is living elsewhere? Are any of the proceeds needed for their living arrangements/care? What was the reason for transferring now before selling rather than sell under your parents name?

If it’s owned 50/50 then the proceeds should be 50/50. Is a solicitor looking after the sale?

You need to start a new thread. The situation is very different from your OP and all you're going to get are posts relating to a will that doesn't exist.

Anyway, the house was put in your two names, so the proceeds should be split between those two names.
Don't be bullied into anything else, assuming you're B.

@ForGladOtter sibling A is being a sneaky wee shit!!!! the inheritance should be split equally between A and B. Then, and only then, can A and B give what they see fit to their offspring!!! not fair to B if A's family gets 2/3 of the inheritance and this is what A is probably thinking of!!!

Sorry just seen the update. Although the same applies, if it’s owned 50:50 that’s how it is divided.

What does the will say. That's what right.

50:50

Well its very simple scenario with 2 possible outcomes:

1. there was a valid will... in which case its split however the deceased dictated.

or

2. their was no valid will... in which case its intestate with the siblings being the equal next of kin. So both will have been appointed executor and their share (as there are only 2 of them) is 50/50. Grandchildren do not count in this (UNLESS one of the next of kin died but was survived by children or grandchildren and their share passes down to their next of kin). One executor cannot decide to split it any other way that deprives the other of their 50% without the others full agreement without a court order and a court would not allow that.

50:50 between siblings then any siblings that want to gift their share to their children can go ahead.

Perhaps two of the three children will have no children themselves and the other one have four, should it be re-divided 0,0,0,100%, if you want it equally split between subsequent generations? It was left to two siblings 50:50.

The relative wealth of the two siblings is irrelevant.

Exactly that and I will reiterate that Sibling A is a CF to do it any other way.

how was that ownership transferred? Is it owned equally? If so that’s the answer isn’t it?

ultimately neither you nor sibling decide this. Either there’s a will that stipulates or intestacy rules apply. Unless you’re worried sibling will coerce surviving parent?

If it is in the will to gove to the children/ siblings and not the GC, then sibling A can do what she wants with her half, B still gets 50%.

If there was no will and automatically split between 2 kids, sibling A can do what she wants with her half, B still gets 50%.

A can have an opinion, but that is all. B should hold on to their 50%

Sibling B is correct. Sibling A is a cheeky fucker. The house was not left to the grandparents, it was left to the children. End of story.

Parents left to siblings so 50/50. Up to you whether you use it or give it to your kids. Use the money for you know. Tell them you’re pregnant with triplets.

We have a similar(ish) situation.

MIL has 2 children. She has put in her will that she leaves her estate to her 3 grandchildren. Two are the children of A and the other is the child of B.

A and B are both annoyed that MIL is leaving them nothing. B is also annoyed that A's family is getting more than his family.

I think split between siblings is better.

50/50 - sibling A is being an CF.

Can you split the proceeds into thirds? Third each for the siblings and the final one split equally between grandchildren.

While it would've been entirely reasonable for the will to make provision for the GC equally as descendants, that hasn't happened. So Sibling A doesn't get to decide that Sibling B should give up any portion of their inheritance. If Sibling B wants to give it all to the dog's home, that's none of Sibling A's business. The financial positions and numbers of DC are irrelevant.

I'm not one of the siblings but am close to one. I know I'm being obtuse but I don't know if those involved may read this and it's not my intention to point fingers or cause any confrontation. This is also hypothetical inasmuch as it's a situation that is strongly anticipated rather than something that's already happened. The person I am close to does not want to fall out with the other. We are just interested in the general view to see which party - if either - is perhaps being unreasonable and to be prepared for any forthcoming discussion. Btw, the amount in question is by no means huge. (No IHT for example). But enough to make a difference to some.

So essentially property is owned by siblings in equal shares, but sibling A thinks that they/their family should get 2/3 of the money when it's sold.

In Scotland, money is usually inherited by the children (or a spouse, depending on circumstances).

The first time that I heard of anything different was when my husband's ex's partner died. Everything was left to the ex - pretty much as you'd expect, since the partner had no children.

DH's son-in-law got a bit drunk one night and started to complain that no money had been left to the granddaughter: "[Partner] should have left something to [GD] because she called him 'Grandad'!"

I was somewhat taken aback. The SIL is English. I've no idea whether that affected his expectations.