# Are you going to divide your estate equally between your children?



## TrundleAlong

Just looking for thoughts on the above. Some parents have children that keep in touch, visit, are non judgmental, help out, offer support, make contact etc. Yet within the same family others don't offer the same level of support or keep in touch for various reasons.  Whilst a parent will always love their children equally should those children who offer support to their parents throughout their lifetime be financially rewarded for doing this in a parents will more so than a child who doesn't offer the same support?

Also, if one child is "doing well" and might not need the inheritance as much as another child, should this child receive less?


----------



## niceoneted

Very interesting question. 
With my own parents they will split everything 5 ways as both came from families with a lot to be disposed of but it was done in an unequal manner and ther was a high court case with regard to one. 

2 siblings live near my parents, one would see them more often then the other, but they offer support in different ways. 
3 live away - 2 in the East and 1 in UK - see them infrequently (I'm one of these) but I would be very supportive when needed.

We are fotrunate to have healthy, independent parents in their 70's. who want everything split 5 ways and this is acceptable to all. 

some of the 5 are doing better than the others but this is down to lifestyle choices as much as earnings.

I think too that those that are around parents more benefit in other areas in that they may get smaller handouts over the years and they also benefit of knowledge, stories, tails of their parents lives. In the last few years I have been going on hols with my parents - something the others wouldnt dream of but they are glad they have company in case anything would go wrong.


----------



## sam h

My father spilt everything equally - similar to above, this was down to the fact my mother was not counted as equal in her mothers will (she was probably doing better than some of her siblings) and she always felt an element of "less loved" due to this - it wasn't about the money, it was the fact she wasn't treated the same as the rest.

I know of someone else who totally excluded an adult child from their will as they had some issues and were not very supportive - the person understood why it had been done, but obviously it still hurt.  The siblings made a decision to include them with an equal share. 

But at the end of the day, it is down to the individual how they choose to leave their hard earned money (and tbh, the best option is to spend it and enjoy it while you can !!!)


----------



## truthseeker

Neither of my sets of grandparents estates were distributed equally. On my fathers side this caused massive family rifts and siblings never speaking to each other again. This was probably more down to the behaviour of individual siblings than the parents intentions though. 

On my mothers side one sibling who was always seen as the 'loser' got the family home and the others were ok with it as they had their own homes and felt that sibling would have been on the streets otherwise - so the person who had made little effort to improve their lot in life was rewarded for it - but with the approval of the siblings.

Probably as a result of the above my parents estate was an equal split but my sibling had not spoken to my parents in many years and a lot of care taking and responsibility had fallen to me. However, had I been unequally favoured I would have equalised it myself as it seems only fair that the split is equal.

In my OHs family, there is one sibling who has made bad choices, had a general apathy about trying to improve their situation in life and comments have often been passed that this sibling should prehaps receive more after the parents pass on, as they 'need' it more - but again, is that not just rewarding bad choices?

I dont have children but if I did Id probably go for the equal split no matter how well or not any of they were doing in life. I also think that it removes the judgemental aspect to just go with the equal split.

But Id also agree with sam h - spend it while you can!


----------



## maureen

I think it can be a hard decision. Probably equally splitting is the best. In my case one of my children has medical needs and will have for life, so I would worry about when they are an adult - will they be able to work and provide for themselves. I assume all going well my other child will go on and work etc but what about the one with health problems...I wouldn't like to leave all to one child as the other one would feel left out, but yet to split the estate evenly might just about cover ones costs and greatly improve the others life. This upsets me a lot, but I hope I will be around for a long time yet and in time will talk to them about it ....


----------



## alaskaonline

I would split it equally, too. You love your children no matter what right? So they deserve to be treated equally. If one sibling helps out more than the other - that's great but shouldn't be seen as an advantage to get more out of their parents plus they are probably financially compensated along the way anyway. You do it out of the goodness of your heart (or at least should) so I don't see why children can be cross with their parents if they're treated equally with their sibling(s).


----------



## fizzelina

maureen said:


> I think it can be a hard decision. Probably equally splitting is the best. In my case one of my children has medical needs and will have for life, so I would worry about when they are an adult - will they be able to work and provide for themselves. I assume all going well my other child will go on and work etc but what about the one with health problems...I wouldn't like to leave all to one child as the other one would feel left out, but yet to split the estate evenly might just about cover ones costs and greatly improve the others life. This upsets me a lot, but I hope I will be around for a long time yet and in time will talk to them about it ....


 
I would say split equally as it can cause issues and arguments otherwise. I've seen this in my mother's family, like other posters. But in your case Maureen a child with medical issues is possibly more in need through no decisions or faults of their own and I'm sure if you decided a 70-30 split or whatever the others would support that as they want their sibling to be provided for.
In our family my brother has Downs Syndrome and my parents have a separate life insurance policy that provides a lump sum for him when they pass and we all think this is a great idea since we want him to be provided for.


----------



## WaterWater

There is nothing as heartbreaking for a parent if they have a child who doesn't keep in touch. To be surrounded by your other children and sharing their lives but having that other empty space that is never filled. I can understand why a parent might exclude that child from a will but it is done out of a sense of hurt and betrayl not out of a lack of love.


----------



## Lsquared

I am strongly of the view that estates should be split evenly amongst children. Whatever your own relationship was with your children, you certainly dont want to create division or hard feelings in the family after you have gone. As for the successful children, why punish them for their success?  Share and share alike and be remembered for your generosity and fairness.


----------



## BOXtheFOX

alaskaonline said:


> If one sibling helps out more than the other - that's great but shouldn't be seen as an advantage to get more out of their parents plus they are probably financially compensated along the way anyway.


 
I don't think it's really about helping out for financial reasons, I think it's more about sharing their lives with you. The Christmas card, the birthday card, the mother's day card, the happy to see you visit rather than the duty visit, the chat. I'm not sure that money is a big factor in why children help out their parents some probably do, keep in to get the inheritance type of thing.  I think that most parents would recognise that kind of love.
Some children see their parents as ogres but until such time as they become parents themselves they don't understand that their parents didn't get any training in being a parent. 
A parent loves their child unconditionally but some parents might be so hurt by their child's coldness that in a moment of anger they might just want to send a message to that child and end up excluding them from an inheritance.  This gives the child a reason to say "I told you so".


----------



## ali

Lsquared said:


> As for the successful children, why punish them for their success? .


 
I totally agree with this. In a friend's family the family home was left to the youngest son aged 30. The arguement was : "Sure youse all have your own houses". As if the houses fell into their laps, weren't laboured for and weren't mortgaged up to the hilt. In this case the parents in question were leaving a council house and maybe just didn't get that people don't just apply to the council and get a home for life anymore.


----------



## Sandals

Excellent programme on last night, BBC2 called "Can't take it with you" at 9pm about drawing up wills, last night about the provision of who will mind the children should an untimely death(s) occur. Next week about how you divide a business in your will.


----------



## PaddyBloggit

My simple argument would be: Leave your property to those who look after you and care for you in your old age.

If some of the children abandon ship totally I don't see why they have any right to come looking for a part of the pot after you've popped your clogs.

In raising your children you've fed, clothed and educated them. You have prepared them for life. Dividing an estate equally between them isn't an automatic right. It's an earned right.

Dividing an estate equally for the sake of harmony when you're gone isn't a valid reason .... if people are going to argue they'll always find a way.


----------



## feltox

This is a tricky one.

i am one of 6 all over 20

3 have houses, 2 are renting and 1 living at home

father alive mother deceased

father made will soon after mother death

one living at home to get house and 2 renting to get right of residence as they would call home weekly/biweekly etc

i be for straight split between 6 or no one gets anything. i did point out my concerns of unfairness of it ie 1 getting a house while the others have mortgages but dont think he has changed will. I think he will do nothing and think everything will be fine when he dies. basic denial

I find it unfair that 1 who did not move out and push himself in life is been rewarded with a house because he is youngest


----------



## Concert

Think it also depends on what is involved in will, if it's a house and bit of money can be straightforward but i notice that in west where farms are concerned they nearly always go to eldest son and rest of family can sometimes get nothing, very unfair.


----------



## putsch

Apart from long term illness or disability it can be a mistake to try to take account of one child's circumstances over another.  e.g. one child is doing really well and regarded by parents as not needing it as much - but jobs can be lost, marriages breakdown, bad investment decisions come home to roost and the parents decision looks very wrong in retrospect!


----------



## SlurrySlump

PaddyBloggit said:


> My simple argument would be: Leave your property to those who look after you and care for you in your old age.
> 
> If some of the children abandon ship totally I don't see why they have any right to come looking for a part of the pot after you've popped your clogs.
> 
> In raising your children you've fed, clothed and educated them. You have prepared them for life. Dividing an estate equally between them isn't an automatic right. It's an earned right.
> 
> Dividing an estate equally for the sake of harmony when you're gone isn't a valid reason .... if people are going to argue they'll always find a way.


 
A very hard thing to do though. Some children blame their parents for all of their own problems however if these are adult children then they need to understand that you cannot continue to blame your parents for everything that is going wrong in your life.  I am certain that for the number of wrong decisions that a parent made they made dozens of right decisions.  Seems pointless to constantly dwell on a parents mistakes. Forgive and forget.


----------



## bullworth

Is it legal not to provide for a child in your will ?


----------



## huskerdu

bullworth said:


> Is it legal not to provide for a child in your will ?



You have no obligation to leave anything to your adult children in your will. 

There is a law that you can sue the estate if "proper provision" has not been made for a child, but my understanding is that these cases only succeed if the child is under 18, or there are special circumstances, examples being children with special needs.


----------



## millieforbes

Concert said:


> Think it also depends on what is involved in will, if it's a house and bit of money can be straightforward but i notice that in west where farms are concerned they nearly always go to eldest son and rest of family can sometimes get nothing, very unfair.



I think this is very important - I've seen wills where the family home was the majority of the estate and splitting it equally realistically can mean not splitting at all as some siblings want to sell, some don't, one may want to live there and not have the means to buy out the others. 

I'm one of many siblings, I expect my parents will divide the estate in a way that makes practical sense. I don't feel entitled to anything from them, they can should write their will as they see fit, they could give all to charity and I wouldn't mind


----------



## Bronte

My view would be to divide everything equally and that's what we've done in our wills with relations appointed as guardians.  My mother is leaving everything equally and my father is leaving one of us out of the will as a punishment.  We haven't figured out which one of us it is but we'll have the last laugh as we'll agree to split it evenly.  But what with the property collapse and shares nosediving there may not be anything worth fighting over.  In any case with old age there may be costs that will have to be paid for out of assets and then there will be nothing at all.


----------



## IsleOfMan

You then have a further problem where one child might decide not to contact the parent for whatever reason. Then along comes a few grandchildren from the other children who can be the light and soul of the grandparents life. These grandchildren are also very important in the grand scheme of things. The adult child who no longer keeps in touch could be replaced by the new grandchildren, making things even messier.


----------



## csirl

Neither myself or my wife have a Will and have no intention making one. House is in joint name, so whichever one survives will own it 100%. Ultimately it will pass to our children.

As we've no complications in our family, its best to go with the Law of the land. Primary Legislation is more legally sound than any Will and so cant be challenged or manipulated by anyone. Also saves on legal/executors fees as grant of probate can easily be done without a lawyer as no complications and less paperwork.

I advised my grandmother to do this when she was alive and was glad that I did for a variety of reasons. Coincidently, my wife advised her grandmother of the same (passed away before we met) and again it was good advice.

Zero Will = Zero relatives trying to get included when person is old and vulnerable + Zero challenges when they pass away.


----------



## Subtitle

I think it is important to note that if a will states that a property is equally divided,  then unless otherwise specified, it is equally divided by _value, _*not* by area, size or measurement.


----------



## Bronte

csirl said:


> Neither myself or my wife have a Will and have no intention making one. House is in joint name, so whichever one survives will own it 100%. Ultimately it will pass to our children.
> 
> .


 
While I agree with your post in general it is different where there are children.  For minor children you need to appoint guardians and give them the power to look after your children in a financial way.


----------



## IsleOfMan

Bronte said:


> My mother is leaving everything equally and my father is leaving one of us out of the will as a punishment. We haven't figured out which one of us it is but we'll have the last laugh as we'll agree to split it evenly.


 
He must be having a laugh. Either that or he is keeping you all at the end of a string, "Look after me in my old age or else", kind of thing.


----------



## Bronte

Unfortunately he's being deadly serious, but we are taking no notice.  We learnt that a long time ago.....


----------



## Slim

My father-in-law left the family house to his three children. The property was registered in their names and sold and a new house purchased for mother. All fine and dandy, but when mother dies and children sell the property, they will be liable to CGT on their family home inheritance, despite the housing crash. If FIL had left the house to his wife, then she could have left it in her will to kids, substantially mitigating the CGT, as she is alive still. Slim


----------



## Grizzly

Bronte said:


> Unfortunately he's being deadly serious, but we are taking no notice. We learnt that a long time ago.....


 
My father calls his Christmas gift to us our Christmas bonus and starts telling us about it on a weekly basis from mid November.


----------



## txirimiri

_My simple argument would be: Leave your property to those who look after you and care for you in your old age._

I completely disagree with this. 

It's not my children's responsibility to look after me in my old age. It is my responsibility to make sure that I have sufficient means to survive for as long as I live (if that makes sense!). I very much hope that I will have a close relationship with my children and that will want to spend time with me and share their lives with me and help me to sort out appropriate medical or other if necessary. But they don't owe me this irrespective of the relationship that I have with them and I would be horrified at the idea that my love for them or my commitment to provide for them was conditional on them giving up part of their adult lives to take care of me for an open ended amount of time. 

Likewise, I don't believe that I am bound to care for my mother in her old age. She is currently hale and hearty but has made it abundently clear that she does not expect to live with any of her daughters as she gets older and that our own families and children should be our priorities. Of course if she were to get infirm or sick,my sisters and I would  be visiting, making sure she was ok, arranging medical and other care if necessary and paying for it also if necessary and we were able to. But, for instance, my older sister lives in the States - if my mother were suddenly to become chronically, are you suggesting my sister should abandon her family and career and life in the States and come over and care for my mother in order to protect her inheritence? Or that me and my sister in Dublin should somehow try and plot to prevent her getting an equal share of my mother's estate if she didn't? 

Frankly, if I felt for a moment that my mother was trying to manipulate me into doing anything for her by holding the carrot of her will over me, I'd happily tell her to shove it and do without a penny. In my view, it is unconscionable to do such a thing to your children.


----------



## millieforbes

csirl said:


> Also saves on legal/executors fees as grant of probate can easily be done without a lawyer as no complications and less paperwork.


 
Is this really true? Does it not depend on the type of assets?


----------



## WaterSprite

@txirimiro - great post.  Agree 100%


----------



## PaddyBloggit

txirimiri said:


> _My simple argument would be: Leave your property to those who look after you and care for you in your old age._




Let me qualify my comment ... I don't mean to physically care for parents or to be at their constant beck at call to the detriment of their own lives (It was a wrong turn of phrase to use).

I too would tell my parents to '_shove_' it if they expected me to be at their beck and call in their old age. 

I mean .... Parents should leave their estate to the children who don't disappear into the wide blue yonder and only reappear for the distribution of the estate after they've died.

My basic argument is that children shouln't assume that they have an automatic right to their parents' funds/estate etc.

If children get on well with their parents that should be enough to earn the right to a share of the estate.

If they don't or do a disappearing act and show little regard for their parents then why leave them anything?

If they all get on with their parents by all means divide equally.

If not, tell them to head off and paddle their own canoes.


----------



## niceoneted

Brilliant post by txirimiri. I am fortunate to have parents who feel like you.


----------



## Bronte

Slim said:


> My father-in-law left the family house to his three children. The property was registered in their names and sold and a new house purchased for mother. All fine and dandy, but when mother dies and children sell the property, they will be liable to CGT on their family home inheritance, despite the housing crash. If FIL had left the house to his wife, then she could have left it in her will to kids, substantially mitigating the CGT, as she is alive still. Slim


 

Don't understand this story. Did the man die and leave a house to his kids but out of the sale of this original house the mother received the money to purchase a different house. Presumable this would be equal to her legal right share.

Where is the capital gains tax arising when the mother dies and leaves the house she now lives in to her children?


----------



## alaskaonline

WaterSprite said:


> @txirimiro - great post.  Agree 100%



Agree too


----------



## Grizzly

ParkLane said:


> You then have a further problem where one child might decide not to contact the parent for whatever reason. Then along comes a few grandchildren from the other children who can be the light and soul of the grandparents life. These grandchildren are also very important in the grand scheme of things. The adult child who no longer keeps in touch could be replaced by the new grandchildren, making things even messier.


 
If you decide to include your grandchildren in your will you will end up having to constantly change your will as new grandchildren come along. Then again with the lowering of the inheritance threshold in the last budget you may find that you have a surplus of funds over the threshold that will be taxed. Why give it to the tax man when you could give it to your grandchildren.
My will leaves everything to my children including the one we never hear from. They are all loved and valued equally even though they might not think it.
[broken link removed]


----------



## txirimiri

Grizzly said:


> My will leaves everything to my children including the one we never hear from. They are all loved and valued equally even though they might not think it.


 
That's a really lovely way to put it and encapsulates in a nutshell what I was trying to day in my post.

Whatever path my children take as adults and whatever relationship they choose to have with me, my lifelong parental love and commitment to them will not change


----------



## Laramie

truthseeker said:


> Probably as a result of the above my parents estate was an equal split but my sibling had not spoken to my parents in many years and a lot of care taking and responsibility had fallen to me. However, had I been unequally favoured I would have equalised it myself as it seems only fair that the split is equal.


 
Why should your sibling get an equal portion the same as you if they did a disappearing act during your parents lifetime?  I am sure your parents must have been heartbroken by the coldness of this act?


----------



## huskerdu

Laramie said:


> Why should your sibling get an equal portion the same as you if they did a disappearing act during your parents lifetime?  I am sure your parents must have been heartbroken by the coldness of this act?



To answer your question " Why should they get money from their parents if they didn't talk to them ?". The simple answer is that the parents decided that they should and that is a good enough reason.

No-one has a right to an inheritance from their parents, it is a gift and not an entitlement. 

As it clear from this thread, some will give the same gift to all their children and some will not. There is no right answer and no wrong answer.


----------



## PaddyBloggit

huskerdu said:


> There is no right answer and no wrong answer.




Indeed!


----------



## Laramie

huskerdu said:


> To answer your question " Why should they get money from their parents if they didn't talk to them ?". The simple answer is that the parents decided that they should and that is a good enough reason.


 
No. Not a good enough reason. Is this done out of some sort of guilt feeling?  They are thinking that "they" did something wrong to make the child do a disappearing act during their lifetime. So now they are tripping over themselves to make up for whatever they think they did?

When the child was the selfish one all along?


----------



## truthseeker

Laramie said:


> Why should your sibling get an equal portion the same as you if they did a disappearing act during your parents lifetime? I am sure your parents must have been heartbroken by the coldness of this act?


 
Dont you think that my sibling was heartbroken that this was the only avenue left available? It wasnt an easy choice.


----------



## truthseeker

Laramie said:


> They are thinking that "they" did something wrong to make the child do a disappearing act during their lifetime.


 
They did.



Laramie said:


> When the child was the selfish one all along?


 
The child was not the selfish one in my own families situation - I can promise you that.


----------



## Laramie

Isn't it very sad that a parent can hold a grudge or similar against a child that can fester for years without ever being resolved. Can parents be that nasty? No forgiveness.
Likewise it is very sad that a child can hold a similar anger toward a parent to the grave.
I know that there can be exceptional circumstances of serious abuse etc but family rows, arguments, emotional outbursts are no reason to hold a grudge for life.


----------



## truthseeker

Laramie said:


> Isn't it very sad that a parent can hold a grudge or similar against a child that can fester for years without ever being resolved. Can parents be that nasty? No forgiveness.
> Likewise it is very sad that a child can hold a similar anger toward a parent to the grave.
> I know that there can be exceptional circumstances of serious abuse etc but family rows, arguments, emotional outbursts are no reason to hold a grudge for life.


 
Yes it is very sad. And yes, parents can be that nasty - possibly as a result of their own backgrounds/upbringing as well. 

Id say there are a lot of cases of unresolved issues that end up in grudges going on til the grave and beyond - obviously there are exceptional circumstances of abuse etc... but Id be pretty sure there are also relatively 'ordinary' things, but you get two stubborn individuals (the apples doesnt fall far from the tree eh?) and then thats it.

As the saying goes - you cant choose your family.


----------



## IsleOfMan

csirl said:


> Zero Will = Zero relatives trying to get included when person is old and vulnerable + Zero challenges when they pass away.


 
Make sure everyone knows where all the bank accounts are otherwise an unfound bank account can end up as a dormant account in a bank, never to be found.
A child not keeping in touch with his/her parents is like a death for the parents. Listening to the Joe show during the week where children are in far flung places such as Australia and New Zealand was very sad. Even sadder when your own child is living in the same city as yourself but does not keep in touch.


----------



## MangoJoe

Bronte said:


> My view would be to divide everything equally and that's what we've done in our wills with relations appointed as guardians.  My mother is leaving everything equally and my father is leaving one of us out of the will as a punishment.  We haven't figured out which one of us it is but we'll have the last laugh as we'll agree to split it evenly.  But what with the property collapse and shares nosediving there may not be anything worth fighting over.  In any case with old age there may be costs that will have to be paid for out of assets and then there will be nothing at all.





Bronte said:


> Unfortunately he's being deadly serious, but we are taking no notice.  We learnt that a long time ago.....



Well then, so what happened Bronte?


----------

