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

T

TrundleAlong

Registered User
Messages
202
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?
 
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.
 
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 !!!)
 
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!
 
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 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).
 
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 ....
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
Lsquared said:
As for the successful children, why punish them for their success? .
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
Is it legal not to provide for a child in your will ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top