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.

If Sibling B had never had children, would Sibling A be expecting to inherit everything for his/ her children?

Quite clearly Sibling A is attempting a land grab using the children as an excuse.

50/50 and the siblings can decide if they want to give some of their share to their children.

It should be split between siblings, then up to them what they want to do with their share. This is what the will says and unless both siblings agree it can't be varied

Right, just seen this now. I agree with a pp, it's not at all like the situation you described in your OP.

The property has now been passed to Sibling A and Sibling B, and they get to decide what to do with their shares. Your parents could've transferred the property to the GC if they wanted, and didn't.

In this scenario, the split should be between siblings. As an heir, you cannot just go and decide to split things differently. You also can’t decide, for example, to give a part to a lovely neighbour, or a charity. You split as is directed in the will (and if no will: 50-50 between siblings) and then it’s up to each heir to spend the money the way they like. If your parents had wanted a different split, they should have made a will and made that clear. I’m afraid your sister is delusional if she thinks this can be done differently.
Edited to say: sorry I now realise this is a hypothetical discussion. Still the principle remains the same :)

Another vote for definitely 50:50. And if the property has been transferred into joint names that is what the solicitor should do as well. Although if I were B I’d be severing the joint tenancy so that’s it’s very clearly 50:50 tenants in common. Actually I’d do that if I were A as well so that’s my half would go to my children if I dies rather than to B.

To answer your question - what is fair and what is right - the answer is exactly the same. 50/50 split between the two siblings. Totally up to them what happens afterwards. Are you A (CF) or B?

Fair 50 50 between the 2 siblings
right also 50 50

if the parent wanted to send the money to the grandkid they would have written a will that way

it would be disrespectful of the wishes of the parent

Sibling A and B get half each, then can do what they like with it regarding their own children, donations to the cats home etc.

As many others have already said, there is no argument:

1. If there is a will, the estate gets divided according to that. (On edit: the two siblings can then do what they like with their share.)
2. If there is no will, it goes under intestacy in equal shares between the children of the deceased. (Again, once it's theirs, they can do as they please with their portion.)
3. Sibling A can go boil their head.

Split 50 /50 between siblings

If A wants to transfer their share they can do so 25 / 25 to their 2 children.

A may not be consciously aware of / considering Bs less financially secure situation. Ie. They assume everyone has an okay pension and mortgage paid off...

I do wish that people on here wouldn't say "inheritance" when they mean "gift"

If the person you're getting the item from is still alive, it's not a bloody inheritance!

There is no will, or at least the house isn’t part of the estate - the house has already been signed over to the siblings and their parent is still alive!

The ownership of the property has already been split between siblings. Sibling A doesn’t get to tell B what to do with their share.

50/50 sibling split , A then can do what they want with their portion .

So currently they both own 50% of the house. Sibling A has no right to take some of sibling B's share to give it to their own kids. This is a no brainer.

Sorry, I missed that. Assuming it's been signed over to them in equal shares, not 2/3 - 1/3, then what I said about head-boiling stands.

Sibling A knows that if they win the argument their kids will have 2/3 of the value and it is taking the piss because is not up to any sibling to decided how their parents are going to make the will or interfere on it.
What the people yet to die is saying about this?

It would be fair for it to be split 50/50 between the siblings.

If the grandparents wanted their grandchildren to inherit a certain amount, they should have written a will and gifted the grandchildren a certain amount of money or stated that they wanted them to get a share of the house sale.

Missed that the owner of the house is still alive. I think it would be fair to leave the house to their children and give a certain amount to their grandchildren in their will as a gift like 10k for example.

Everyone RTFT! There is no will. Parent is still alive.

OP I think you're on the hook for deprivation of assets this is pretty serious and there is no time limit, it can be investigated any time in future if your parent needs the state to pay for any care Please look it up- your and your sibling can't go merrily dividing things up and considering the matter closed, without investigating this.

You will also possibly be on the hook for IHT if your parent dies within 7 years. Supposed your parent's house was their main residence and worth up to 500k. If the parent had kept it, so still lives there when they die (and the estate in total is worth under 2 million), nobody would have to pay IHT, the parent and they could pass it to their two children, OP and sibling, at that point. Each sibling gets £250k tax free, once the house is sold.

However if the parent gifts the siblings together the house worth 500k today, and then dies in 2 years' time leaving no money, YOU have to pay 40% IHT for the £250k you've received. Complete waste of money.

So the following questions are vital -
How old is the surviving parent?
Where are they living now?
What other assets do they have- what would their total estate be worth?
What plans do they have for paying for later life care?
What was the intention of the gift to you both?
How long ago did it happen?
Was it at the time of the death of the other parent?

Is it hypothetical in terms of the house not actually having been transferred to the siblings yet?

If this hasn’t happened yet then the simplest thing would be for the parent to sell the house, and either divide the proceeds 50/50 or write a will for the house to be sold later.

What was the reasoning for the house being transferred now? Isn’t any of the equity needed for care/housing costs for the parent? Where are they living and how is that being funded?

Sibling A sounds outrageously entitled.

HRTFT, but I'll bet sibling A is a man and sibling B is a woman (sibling A is a cheeky fucker because he wants to deprive sibling B of an equal share).

Seeing as she is still alive, what does the mum think about her children selling the house and splitting the proceeds?

You divide it according to the will, so if only the siblings are named, they inherit, and they decide what to do with their own portion of the money.

If the money were to be split between the grandchildren, then it should be mentioned in the will.