Parent and child inheritance

onlyroz

quidsy wrote: »

No it all sounds perfectly logical in one way but what if, when your kids were grown but unable to afford their own property or to go into higher education due to this money being used. Your brother would be in possesion of a property much larger than he would have naturally had had your kids not contributed, but who is to say he would sell it & fairly share out the profit? Then lets say he dies & his own children inherit said property.

Better this than have my kids crammed into bunk beds in a box room and fed on beans on toast every day because my brother was struggling financially to look after them. The "inheritance" should be spent to better the lives of the children, and having a nice home environment is a big part of this.

quidsy

And that is why a "neutral" trustee is needed to discuss that need with your brother whilst also ensuring via correct legal means that the kids are not being deprived of their fair share of whatever profit the larger house has made in the future.

patchwork_cat

umm. The thing is that even though we have all read about it, I feel it is unusual.

shop-to-drop

I was looking up trusts and wills in recent days due to my current circumstances and gather that you can have up to 4 trustees which would be safer than just one and also can leave an expression of wishes for how you would like the money to be used. This is not legally binding but especially if there are several trustees to have to agree may help the use of the money be implemented how you would hope it was.

Unfortunately in my case there are no expression of wishes and only one trustee and I am concerned that it would be used as intended.

They also recommend that the expression of wishes is updated yearly and as it is not legally binding I'm guessing this needn't cost anything to do and involve a solicitor.

Alikay

onlyroz wrote: »

If I died and my children went to live with (e.g.) my brother I wouldn't object to him spending some of "their" inheritance on buying a larger house for them all to live in. Is this an abnormal view point then?

No. When my children were small we had "the talk" with my parents and decided between us that if we died, our children would live with them in our much larger house. Money was to be released for the children's care and upkeep including whatever daily help (gardener, cleaner etc) was needed to enable my parents to manage, bearing in mind they were 50+ years older than the children. What we wanted was the very best care and stability for our children rather than a large wedge of cash for them to spend when they reached adulthood.

SandC

onlyroz wrote: »

Better this than have my kids crammed into bunk beds in a box room and fed on beans on toast every day because my brother was struggling financially to look after them. The "inheritance" should be spent to better the lives of the children, and having a nice home environment is a big part of this.

Onlyroz though surely you would have known your brother's circumstances and included him in your will also not just left the entire estate in trust for the children? I know I would, especially if I had even an inkling that he would become guardian of the children. (Theoretically, don't have any myself).

Mojisola

onlyroz wrote: »

If I died and my children went to live with (e.g.) my brother I wouldn't object to him spending some of "their" inheritance on buying a larger house for them all to live in. Is this an abnormal view point then?

That would normally be allowed through a trust but the children's money would be protected and their share paid back when the larger house was no longer needed.

GobbledyGook

I think unless the parent is a drunk or an addict (be that drugs/gambling) I'd hand it over to the parent.

The vast majority of parents will do the best for their child.

I put money in the bank for my godson. I know his Mum used the money to fix her boiler in January. I know that if and when she can she'll put it back. However, I'd rather have a warm godchild with a few hundred quid less in the bank than a cold/ill better off one so if she doesn't I'll not be giving her grief. I know she's not taking the mickey and ultimately he is better off than he would have been had she been too proud to use the cash.

rpc

Alikay wrote: »

What we wanted was the very best care and stability for our children rather than a large wedge of cash for them to spend when they reached adulthood.

In which case you would set up the trust to allow for that (and probably give the children any capital left at a certain age).

If the trust holds the inheritance for the child with no permitted expenditure, then that is what the trustees may do (they might choose to invest some money in a house, but it is still the kids' investment when they are old enough).

Our wills stipulate that if we both die, our money is put into a trust to cover the expenses of raising our children (after leaving them their legal rights directly). That is very very different to leaving all our money to our kids.

koan_2

DigForVictory wrote: »

Wherever there's money, there needs to be safeguards. Sad world.

^^ Absolutely!

Parents get into debt and mismanage their money. Children don't. If there was a few grand sitting in the child's account, the temptation for the parent(s) to use it themselves would be too great.