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 the Will states that the siblings should inherit then that is what legally must happen. They could use a solicitor to do a deed of assignment where you are in effect rewriting the Will. All those set to inherit have to go agree

Sibling A is greedy and grasping, trying to enrich their own children at the expense of their sibling.

We had exactly this issue in our family.
Granny updated the will so the money would be split equally between the four grandchildren: me, my two siblings and our cousin, only child. Our uncle and aunt, rather unsurprisingly, contested this set up with Granny and she changed it back to being split between my dad and his brother.

Yes it did seem somewhat unfair; our cousin is child free and wealthy whereas there are five children between me and my siblings, all of whom are going to need help and it does seem somewhat bonkers that our wealthy child free cousin will ultimately end up with half Granny’s estate whereas the other half will ultimately be split between three families but that’s just life really. It was my parents’ choice to have three children and our choice to go on and have more!

I'm not sure that the OP & follow-ups make for the most tightly/unambiguously drafted set of text ever, but if, as seems to be the case, the two siblings are already 50:50 owners of this property, then it's of course entirely down to each sibling to decide what happens to his or her half in the event of a sale.

If the question were to be something else, such as, 'is it better for elderly homeowners to gift or bequeath a property to their grandkids rather than kids?', that'd be far more difficult and subjective - but everything seems clear cut here, the property has already been gifted during the lifetime of the original owner[s]?

It goes with whats in the will.

And if there is no will then the law decides who it goes to, so no one has to "decide" how any dead relatives assets are split.

Under the will it passed to the two siblings equally. Sibling A cannot require Sibling B to disclaim part of their share for Sibling A's children (and why on earth should they)

50-50 between siblings. Not even a question..

The will will state split between siblings. Your sibling can do what they like with their share, but can’t dictate yours.

Even if you don't read the full thread, at least just read OPs posts. There is no will or inheritance, the parent is still alive!

If the siblings own it jointly as tenants in common it really doesn’t matter - they can each do what they want with their half when the time comes to dispose of it. However, the one who thinks it should go to the 5 grandchildren equally, rather than 50:50 tomsiblings and then split, despite being jointly owned by siblings, is unfair in my book. The only way that could happen is if the GPs had bypassed the siblings @ForGladOtter

Oh have just read the update that says ownership has already passed to the siblings. Well in that case the ship has sailed for Sibling A, assuming it was passed to them in equal shares. The grandmother's views, changing or not, are now irrelevant. If Sibling B does not want to change the beneficial interest in favour of Sibling A/their kids, they should make that very clear in writing so there can be no dispute in the future.

Sibling A must think sibling B was born yesterday. Some estates are split by grandchildren rather than children but it sounds like the deceased didn't want this- the money was left 50/50 between their children. If the parents had wanted to leave it 33% to each grandchild, they could have done so.

Sibling A is a greedy fucker.

Ideally between the siblings - it will make a material difference to sibling b & their child right now whereas if it’s split between the grandchildren (I’m presuming they’re all under 16) it’ll just go into pots for The Future which is unhelpful!
A third option might be meeting in the middle and splitting it 5 ways…

Equal split to siblings. Siblings can then decide what to do with it.

Indeed! Oops.
But I am guessing they're talking about how they will structure the will. So same advice really but of course anyone can have any will they like.

Sibling A is a monster.

50/50 between A and B. Anything else is plain wrong/unfair. Why penalise B for choosing /only able to have one child

Duplicate post

No, they're not. OP has already said that the siblings now own the property 50/50 and that there is not going to be a will involved as it is already past that stage

Is Sibling B at an age where they could conceivably have more DC? What would Sibling A’s position be if Sibling B had more DC in the future? Would they take money off their own DC to give those new DC an equal share?

To split 50% between siblings is fair on the siblings and all grandchildren, both existing and who might come along.

And there is no point asking the living parent as they will 100% say "do what you think is best" and leave it to the siblings to decide. But has the parent already given the siblings the house??? Yes, right? So all this is irrelevant?

Sibling A is bring massively unfair and outrageously entitled.

The parent (s) gave the house equally to the two siblings . They own it 50 / 50 (unless there is some other complication you haven’t included). That’s that.

If it’s for sale they will get the proceeds 50 / 50, presumably.

Have they taken into account hat they will need to pay Capital Gains Tax as it isn’t their primary residence?

Split between siblings! Then the parent can decide. We had this when my Granny died, my mums sister wanted it split 5 ways between the grandchildren, my mums sister said absolutely not as I am an only child and the sisters had two kids each. She didn’t trust it would actually go to the children and she would end up with more. It went 3 ways in the end!

Sibling split ! A doesn’t get more because they have more children. B should announce they’re expecting twins!

Definitely 50/50 split between siblings. How can it anyway be fair otherwise? If one sibling had no children, would you say they got nothing? Makes no sense.