Wills: divide equally between the kids, or to each according to their needs?

In My Humble Opinion
41

Another give it to them equally voice:

Your friend has no idea what the future holds [OG forbid some of this]:

N gets hit by a bus, W’s wife cheats on him and they never had kids or they do and she divorces him and remarries Trump’s kid, B and the wife have an “accident”/change their minds and have twins, B loses his well paying job, W hits the lottery, B’s wife becomes disabled and he loses her income and must care for her, N meets a fellow dork and ends up marrying her…

The point is people change, situations change, circumstances are extremely fluid - absent N being unable to care for himself (and that does not seem the case) it seems unwise to base such a huge life altering decision on suppositions and “supposed to” happens

42

Another vote for split it equally. It sounds like everybody is able to take care of themselves. Absent a special needs situation where someone is mentally handicapped and unable to take care of themselves, it will create incredible ill will to not split it equally.

I suspect that if W gets a larger chunk, it will poison the relationship between W and B. Nothing poisons a family relationship faster than one sibling getting a larger amount than another sibling. If they don’t inherit equally, then there relationship will never be the same. Also, N sounds like he is socially awkward as opposed to troubled.

How old is your friend?

43

As described, split it equally. Don’t “punish” the responsible one. Actually if anything I’d tend to want to give him less because he’s already had the benefit of financial help. Maybe, in the case of the youngest child, handle his inheritance so by setting up a trust that can be used to pay the child’s expenses, rather than by direct inheritance.

This is similar to what we plan on doing with Dweezil - money left for him will be held in a “special needs” trust (that can be dissolved once he’s proven he can be self-supporting).

We may not do a 50-50 split though. Our wills are set up that way right now, but as we see what their earning potential is, we may skew it more in favor of Dweezil’s trust. He has autism, and there’s a good chance he will never be fully self-supporting so will genuinely need more funds.

Another option: With the siblings that have children, leave their “share” in trust for the grandchildren.

44

Correction: “already had financial help” refers to the formerly-irresponsible, now responsible brother, not the one who’s always been responsible :smack:

45

I have encouraged my mother to give the bulk of whatever is in her will to my sister as she will have the greater need. Mom is against it totally - she loves us all equally and we should all get an equal share. I could give my share to my sister, but then I would have to pay taxes on it.

I appreciate Mom’s intent, but would prefer that she did what she could for my sister. This is more selfish of me than you know - I have no intention or desire to support my sister once Mom leaves this earth.

46

One of my grandfathers was actually very strict in the equal-division aspect of his will. AFAIK, it was a four-way split between his children, with one of them being the executor. A few mementos and such were given to grandchildren or others, but the estate was just split between the children.

Over the years, my grandfather gave quite a bit to his children, but not equally. One of them is single, and they also have some mental health issues and has been on disability for many years (they’re now retired). They were given quite a bit of monetary help over the years (not sure how much, but probably in the low five digits, a couple times).

The other three children are all married with children, and self-supporting. There were smaller cash gifts and help over the years, but not the same as their one sibling.

However, my grandfather didn’t just keep track of the large cash gifts/help, but everything he ever gave his children. One went for a visit and he gave them a set of encyclopedias he picked up at a garage sale (out of date, BTW). Well, that’s worth, say, $100? He’s put it in his book. Same with any other piddly little “gift” over the years, whether or not the gift was even wanted (some was junky garage sale stuff).

Every year he’d total up everything that was given to each child. He also “adjusted for inflation” by increasing the running total according to the Consumer Price Index.

Then when he passed away, each child got an equal share in the estate, adjusted for the total cash/gifts they’d been given over the last howeverlongitwas (20-30 years? not sure when he started tracking).

Personally, I totally don’t like my grandfather’s anal retentive method of minutely tracking every little thing. It also led to a lot of acrimony. Say Child A got $10,000 to help them out some time. Child B got $5,000 some time when they needed help, and then “$5,000 worth” of unwanted stuff with an inflated “estimated” value, just so they’d be receiving the “same” amount as Child A. :rolleyes:
So, basically, I approve of the equal share method (with adjustments of the shares based on any large amounts of money given in the past).

47

One of my children (A) is definitely better at money management than the other (B). In addition, (B) has a number of health issues. Nevertheless, my husband and I have our wills drawn such that when we’re both gone, any valuables remaining will be divided equally between both of them. And they both know it. There is also no provision that (A) has to take care of (B). We see no reason why the good fortune and work of one has to be used to her disadvantage. Of course, one would hope they would help each other just because it’s the right thing to do.

They also both know that (A), although the younger of the two, is written down as the exector of the will, and both understand that an executor does not decide who gets what share, but simply gets to do all the legal running about and signing of stuff.

Slight hijack – my father apparently believed he was being fair by making my sister and me joint co-exectors of his estate. He was wrong. It just meant that anything important to be done – dealing with the probate office, selling off assets, dealing with bank accounts – had to be done with both of us in physical attendance.