Inheritance: Trying to avoid future problems

rachbc

kelloggs36 wrote: »

How presumptuous of you - my sister is a nurse and has always said that if my mum needed full time care, then she would provide it. However, is it fair that those who have taken from the state all their lives, ie never worked, claimed benefits, then pension, then get all their care provided for free, whilst those who have worked full-time from the age of 15 and paid into the system way beyond what they have ever had in return, then have to give what little they have managed to get for themselves back to those who have never paid??? I don't.

If your sister is going to look after her and therefore your mum won't need to pay for care why would you mum need to protect her assets from being sold of to pay for a care home that she's not going to be needing???

kelloggs36

Just in case - it is something that both my mum and dad have said repeatedly over the years, so I know that it is what they want. You can't predict the future, you can prepare for the worst case scenario though, which is what my mum wants to do.

rachbc

so knowing that they didn't want their home selling did they prepare for the worst by saving to pay for a care home instead?

melancholly

having watched the gerry robinson show this week, it really shows up how people don't always think about long term fairness - the example with the daughter possibly being left out of the farm made it unfair to her and the sons not getting an inheritance that meant any accessible money was unfair to them. talking it through with a professional made a difference. not everyone understands the full implications of any given will..... it's not something ever discussed betwen me and my parents, but having seen the show, it does illustrate how important it is to talk about it, otherwise actions without justifications can be massively misinterpreted! (although i'm not in a position to even think about inheriting a £4million business!) i don't 'expect' anything btw, my parents know that much at least. i'd much rather they spent any money they have on themselves and enjoy it.

onlyroz

kelloggs36 wrote: »

How presumptuous of you - my sister is a nurse and has always said that if my mum needed full time care, then she would provide it. However, is it fair that those who have taken from the state all their lives, ie never worked, claimed benefits, then pension, then get all their care provided for free, whilst those who have worked full-time from the age of 15 and paid into the system way beyond what they have ever had in return, then have to give what little they have managed to get for themselves back to those who have never paid??? I don't.

I think that if you have nothing then the state should provide you with a basic level of care in your old age. However, if you have a large and valuable asset (e.g. a house) then it is extremely selfish to expect the state to foot the bill if you need care in your old age.

margaretclare

kelloggs36 wrote: »

How presumptuous of you - my sister is a nurse and has always said that if my mum needed full time care, then she would provide it. However, is it fair that those who have taken from the state all their lives, ie never worked, claimed benefits, then pension, then get all their care provided for free, whilst those who have worked full-time from the age of 15 and paid into the system way beyond what they have ever had in return, then have to give what little they have managed to get for themselves back to those who have never paid??? I don't.

Even though your sister is a nurse, she would find it impossible to provide care 24/7, 365 days a year. Think about this for a moment. We all need to eat, sleep, see to personal concerns, recharge our batteries etc and your sister is no exception. Full-time care being provided by one person is just a pipe-dream. I'm sure that your sister, in her normal job, works as part of a team and does not do it all herself, day shifts, night shifts, no holidays, everything. Impossible.

thorsoak

jozbo wrote: »

Her property will be valued over £1million.

I suppose the reason it's playing on our minds is that this is a relatively new relationship, and our mum worked hard all her life and I think if that could all go to somebody else this easily we'd find it quite a shock!

Your mum could have ensured that all she worked for went to you, had she so wished. The fact that she did not do so indicates that your "inheritance" did not even occur to her - she wasn't working for YOUR benefit.

SandC

kelloggs36 wrote: »

How presumptuous of you - my sister is a nurse and has always said that if my mum needed full time care, then she would provide it. However, is it fair that those who have taken from the state all their lives, ie never worked, claimed benefits, then pension, then get all their care provided for free, whilst those who have worked full-time from the age of 15 and paid into the system way beyond what they have ever had in return, then have to give what little they have managed to get for themselves back to those who have never paid??? I don't.

I kind of agree with you here. My father was in a nursing home for the last 8 years of his life. Luckily for us his pension covered it. If my stepmum also needs to have nursing care then I daresay the house may have to be sold. I doubt whether it would be for so long as dad though.

In reality, there are only a very small proportion of people who do need care in the form of nursing homes. Think of all the elderly people you have ever known and how many of them passed away quietly at home or in hospital after an illness? The majority I would think.

Because my dad suffered ill health for years before having to succumb to full time nursing care, he and my stepmum setup some form of bonds for my brother and I - I suspect just in case everythnig they built up went.

I would rather they had spent everything on themselves, but sadly my dad got sick at age 58 and they weren't able to do their retirement justice. So yes, I'll be very grateful of a share of their home if my brother and I end up inheriting it.

anoneemouse

My view is that you are coming at this way too soon after your mothers death - when both you and your father are still likely to be "feeling the effects".

It is his money now and you may find that he has already made plans to share any "leftover" money after buying into his girlfriends house between his children and is planning anyway to ensure his half of the new joint house is left between you (once his girlfriend is also dead).

If he has decided to spend any leftover monies himself then that is entirely his business and his right to do so.

Obviously his girlfriend will be entitled to remain in her house after your father dies (assuming he dies before her). Half the house will be in her ownership anyway and the rest will be hers "by rights" until she dies. If I were in your father's position - then I would spend any leftover monies from his house sale as I decide now and then leave my half of the new joint house to you all once the girlfriend no longer needs the house to live in (ie she is dead herself).

If you "hound" your father now for more than that or to receive any money now then you will alienate him and go against what your mother would have wished.

I am sorry - but you are coming over as greedy to me.

Do you actually care about your father?

Parents do tell their children what the position is if they care about them and they have reached an age where they expect to die sooner than later. My parents have told me exactly what to expect. However, this is something they are entitled to say in their own time and I had certainly not asked them how much I could expect. I just left it that they would tell me in their own time. They did tell me in their own time and I find what they have decided perfectly fair and satisfactory. Obviously I am human and would like everything - but what they have decided is perfectly fair and so I accept their verdict. I suggest you take the same attitude.

anoneemouse

rachbc wrote: »

so knowing that they didn't want their home selling did they prepare for the worst by saving to pay for a care home instead?

Thereby having to do two lots of saving in a lifetime presumably? One for the house and one to keep their own house?

ITRW I have only ever come across one person who believes a persons' home that they have had to save and work hard for should be taken off them and sold if they have to go into a nursing home ever. That one person doesn't own their own home.

I think that speaks volumes as to their motive for thinking this way then. They are jealous of people who have got their own home.

It is fair to say that some of the people who do not own their own homes will be in that position because it simply wasn't possible for them to do so ever - no matter how hard they tried to.

The one person I know who believes their homes should be taken off them to pay for their care could, in actual fact, have bought a home for themselves. However, they preferred to spend money on a car they could have managed without and throwing a lot of it down their throat in alcohol. Their choice to blow their money like that. Other peoples' choice to look after theirs and spend it wisely.

Anyway can we now get back on topic - namely the subject of the inheritance?