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.

Sibling A can do what they wish with their 50%. They’re entirely in the wrong to try and force a three way split which will effectively leave sibling B’s child with less.

Definitely 50:50 split between siblings. If they then want to give to their children, then that’s their decision.

Everyone is saying the same thing in their answers and I’d be amazed if you weren’t a supporter of Sibling B. Sibling A is so obviously in the wrong.

Weirdly had the same conversation come up within our family recently. Sibling with the most children wants inheritance wants it split equally between all siblings and GC. I personally want it to be spilt equally between siblings and then if we want to pass down to GC we will.

An option we discussed was 50% split between siblings and then the remaining 50% spilt between GC. Im not sure what has been agreed on.

Im not too fussed but there are 3 siblings each with different amounts of children so one sibling could potentially be left almost 50% less than sibling with more children. Im not going to agreed about it, it'll be what ever my parents decide.

Of course not, it should be split equally between the 2 children. The parents will have already spent more on their child who has 2 children.

What would happen if Person A had 6 children? They would still expect an equal split?

Aghhh. This is why people should write an accurate OP and not drip feed. Everyone is now going on about whether there is or isn't a will when the parent is still alive and it's not an inheritance

Proceeds should be split between siblings. The siblings can then choose to leave to their children if they want to.
The sibling with 1 child shouldn’t miss out on proceeds just because the other sibling has 2 children.

But as per my previous message, there may well be IHT payable - by the siblings - of the parent dies before the 7 year window, if they leave no other assets and if the house is worth more than 325k. And the siblings may be considered to have taken part in deprivation of assets which means the parent may not get local authority support like a care home if needed.

If these things aren't relevant then yeah, I guess the argument about which grandchild gets is all is fair enough to have. I think it's down to the surviving parent to stand firm against their greediest child though!

Sibling A is being a cheeky fucker.
It should be split 50/50 between the siblings.
Sibling B might have another child or might not, but that's not relevant.
However many children each person has, they should always inherit an equal share.

Not surprised Sibling A is better off as they're clearly a natural grasper.

What if A had nine children? Would they expect their niece/nephew to be content with a one-tenth share?

Everyone knows when they choose how many children to have, that wealth will be divided between them. Sibling A could have had six children to Sibling B's one, but this doesn't mean that each of the six should somehow have their individual wealth protected at the same level of Sibling B's only child.
GPs might choose to skip their DC for inheritance and go straight to DGC (increasingly Boomers are doing this) in which case it would be reasonable to expect that it's equal between DGC. But if the siblings are in their 30s-50s they should do 50/50 without accounting for number of children IMO. Anything could happen between now and the DGC's eventual inheritance. Siblings could blow it all, invest it very successfully, die early etc.

Def 50/50 with the siblings. It is grossly unfair to do it any other way.

As others say split between the siblings and A can do whst they want with their share.

This.

"Inherit" was probably the wrong term to use. Ownership of the property was transferred to the siblings.
I haven't RTFT so sorry if repeating.
Surely the spllt has already happened, when the property was transferred to the siblings. The solicitors will split the funds on the current legal position, which I presume is 50/50.

If the parents gave it equally to the children, then it’s equal. Sibling A doesn’t get to decide to take some of sibling B’s share and I don’t understand how anyone rational could think that way.

I assume the will is equally between thee siblings and that's how it should be disbursed.

There are noises from husband's sil that her husband should inherit more than dh as they have more children than us and are also grandparents.

My view is its up to the in laws, until they actually die the will is their business only

Between siblings.
Not a huge fan of inheritance skipping generations (unless for good reason).

Example.
Person has 3 children, and 7 grandchildren.
Child A dies leaving 2 (adult) Grandchildren.
Child B & C survive.

Inheritance goes 3 ways, and Child A’s share goes to Grandchild A1 & A2 split equally. Child B receives their 3rd, as does Child C.
Child B has 3 children - doesn’t impact proportion received.

If siblings parents had wanted to leave the property to the grandchildren, they would have done so, and would have split it three ways, they did not, so why does sibling A want to change the will? Would she have wanted to change it if sibling B had three children to her two, I think not!!

50:50 between the siblings.
That's the only fair way.

Split 50/50 between the siblings. A is free to pass their share to their children.

If it was going to grandchildren directly I would do 25/25/50 personally as I would send equal amounts through each branch of the family tree.

50/50 between the siblings is the only fair way.

it should go to the sibling unless you as the parent want it to go direct to the kids

My late parents us what we wanted done / left in there wills
i asked if my share could go direct to my son

my sister wanted her share herself

no issue with this and we are both happy with the way it was all dealt with

It needs to be split 50:50 between the siblings. It’s the only fair way - they can then decide if/ how they split their half between their own children.
if it was split between the grandkids then the what would happen if sibling b had a second child later - I doubt they would take back inheritance from the other grandchildren so the fourth grandchild didn’t miss out. Alternatively what would Sibling A be proposing if sibling b didn’t have any children? As going by their grandkids proposal all the inheritance would be split between their children and sibling b wouldn’t inherit anything.