Inheritance. Legal v Moral.

[headinhands]

This issue comes up from time to time and it's fascinating to watch the divide.

Sometimes an inheritance, while perfectly legal is viewed by some as not fair. For example, imagine my dad wrote his will several years ago. At that time my brother had a mortgage and I was renting.

He says in the will that any estate pays off the brothers mortgage first and then what's left is divided between me and my brother. Imagine my father dies but a year before I secured a mortgage. Now legally my brother can let it stand and allow his mortgage to be paid off with potentially nothing being left over. But is that fair in the colloquial sense? I'm fascinated by people who see it as black and white.

I'd like to understand the reasoning of people who see it as simply legal and don't get tied up with the potential familial issues.

It isn’t “fair” in the sense of treating you equally, no. But your father must have had a reason for writing his will the way he did and ultimately a will is somebody’s wishes for their own money and possessions. If I were your brother in this position I might try and equalise the split after the fact, which I suppose is what some people would see as the moral thing to do.

Your scenario wouldn't make much sense to me. It would mean always favouring the brother because he's have his mortgage paid off as well as half of what is left over but you'd only have half of what is left over.

In terms of black and white thinking though, I do see wills and inheritance as the business of the people who are making/giving them. It’s up to them, they aren’t obliged to be fair or nice, and what they want to happen with what is theirs is really the focal point.

I see ‘fair’ and ‘moral’ as carrying out the wishes of the deceased. Nothing else comes into it as I don’t believe descendants automatically have any right to or claim over anyone else’s money, even if they’re relatives. If someone has a stated wish it’s their responsibility to update their will as circumstances change. I find it bizarre when people quibble over who gets what when a parent has died.

t’s up to them, they aren’t obliged to be fair or nice, and what they want to happen with what is theirs is really the focal point.

I get all that. I'm just thinking more of the long term lifelong relationships amongst family. I guess I'm thinking about it as someone who wouldn't want write a will that wasn't a equal. I'm not thinking like someone who is okay with leaving a will that could cause issues. Until I could think like them I guess it's all going to seem bizarre to me.

I think you have to accept that nobody is entitled to anything and people can do what they like with their money.

Life isn't fair.

I won't carry out spiteful or stupid instructions, or actions that show blatant favouritism. That's my personal moral code. Once you are dead, tough, you don't get to continue controlling people from beyond the grave. Some people see it differently. Luckily my family see things the same way so we would just even things out. It only becomes tricky when your hands are tied eg by trusts to dependant children. I would probably encourage my kids to share it at age 18 in that case, but it might not be possible.
Usually the solicitor points out potential pitfalls, so it is only spite, stubborness or stupidity that leads to this.

The reality is it is incredibly legal. If there is a will it needs to be executed as per its stated requirements, subject to any legal challenges. If there is not a will then there are very clearly defined legal stipulations as to how an estate must be distributed.

People can get as worked up as they like regarding what they think is fair or not. It doesn't matter, the law is the law and takes precedence over peoples feelings or personal opinions. The answer to the problem is for people to take their wills more seriously - make sure they have one and keep it current.

If I were your brother in this position I might try and equalise the split after the fact,

Yeah I would equalise it too, if only for my sanity and sense of peace. I'm not sure I'd be able to feel happy any other way. I'd probably reason that as my father wasn't around he wouldn't be affected by me rigging it so it was equal. Whereas I would be adversely affected by not making it as fair as I could.

I won't carry out spiteful or stupid instructions, or actions that show blatant favouritism.

I think you're overestimating the level of discretionary power an executor has.

I think you have to accept that nobody is entitled to anything and people can do what they like with their money.

Yeah I get that. But also you could argue that if I was the brother the father would have to accept that me sorting it so that me and my brother gained the same would be me following your above statement. It would be me doing what I liked. And I guess I find it hard to understand that not doing what you could to be fair would be doing 'what you liked'. I guess that's the crux.

Life isn't fair.

I know. But generally don't humans want things to be as fair as we can make them. Isn't that the whole shebang with politics?

We usually say 'life isn't fair' when we realise they's little we can do to redress the imbalance. In reality if I was the brother and said this to my sibling it would feel like I was saying 'I want as much as I can' because I'd know there was a whole lot I could do about it.

o be executed as per its stated requirements

Yeah, I get that bit. But after when it's been executed and one sibling has no mortgage to pay, owns a house and has £20000 and the other has a £1000 monthly mortgage and £20000. I'd do something to even it out. There'd be all manner of solutions that wouldn't affect the execution of the will.

Couldn't do this in Scotland (from moveable estate) as you can't disinherit your children. They are entitled to a legal minimum.

One person's idea of fair may not be shared with another.

Take a simple example, parent of two children, A & B leaves everything in their estate to be split equally between them after expenses and taxes. That seems pretty fair. However, what if child B had won £1 million on the lottery, is the split still fair?

That seems pretty fair. However, what if child B had won £1 million on the lottery, is the split still fair?

Then I'd probably be inclined to even it out with my sibling. Wouldn't most people see that as fair.

Fairness is actually a fascinating area. Did you know dogs even know when something is and isn't fair.

I know. But generally don't humans want things to be as fair as we can make them. Isn't that the whole shebang with politics?

No, the shebang with politics and law is to create a societal structure that allows you to hoard your wealth whilst at the same time offering enough to the commoners so they can a) remain a productive workforce and b) they don't revolt.

https://www.independent.co.uk/News/science/dogs-wolves-unfairness-acceptance-human-owners-pets-behaviour-research-vienna-a7779076.html

allows you to hoard your wealth whilst at the same time offering enough to the commoners so they can a) remain a productive workforce and b) they don't revolt.

And that's what you want? You want to keep commoners compliant and aren't concerned with inequality so long as commoners shut up?

I am in line to inherit 50% of my parents estate along with my brother.

But I (almost) own my home outright, whereas my brother rents and has children as well.

So should my parents 'morally' give him more? Or should they treat their children equally?

Should I give up a portion of my 50% to give to him because he made different life choices to me?

Should he give some of his up to me?

I think you have me placed on the wrong side of this power play.

But after when it's been executed and one sibling has no mortgage to pay, owns a house and has £20000 and the other has a £1000 monthly mortgage and £20000. I'd do something to even it out. There'd be all manner of solutions that wouldn't affect the execution of the will.

If one benificiary chooses to give some of their inheritance to another person that is their choice. Other people expecting them to do so is unreasonable.

Then I'd probably be inclined to even it out with my sibling. Wouldn't most people see that as fair.

Good for you. That doesn't mean you can expect other people to do what you would do and if they don't "IT'S JUST NOT FAIR!!!".

You know what, this is clearly just yet another case of someone getting their petted lip out because they don't like how they were provided for in someone's will. I have no time for that sort of nonsense. I don't like vultures.

I wouldn't have peace of mind if I didn't carry out the wishes of the deceased

It's not your money to do as you wish with and redistribute as you see fit contrary to the deceased's wishes.

It was their money that they may have worked 50 odd years to earn. They have thought carefully about how they want their money distributed after their death, paid for a will to be drawn up and appointed an executor they trust to carry out their wishes.

But your personal ideas should trump all that? I don't think that's fair at all.

You are over thinking this. Most people leave simple wills. It’s generally not recommended or tenable to set conditions about how the money should be used. The reality is it goes to spouses and/ or is split amongst children.

It’s far too tedious to define and work out complicated arrangements. If someone does then they mean it. The example given indicates the person making the Will is controlling and judgemental. Probably not worth relying on their benevolence in life.