Wills/Inheritance/Stepchildren

Malthusian

Mojisola wrote: »

There was a TV series a few years ago where parents sorted out their wills and then discussed them with the family.

In most cases the parents were shocked at their children's emotional reactions to what they had considered sensible, reasonable distributions.

I'm guessing this show didn't involve monogamous families telling their independent and well-grounded children that on the second death everything would be left in equal shares. Because it would have made lousy TV.

Mojisola

Malthusian wrote: »

I'm guessing this show didn't involve monogamous families telling their independent and well-grounded children that on the second death everything would be left in equal shares. Because it would have made lousy TV.

Obviously they had chosen more complicated set-ups such as where there was a family business.

It was a very thoughtful series and, through the interviews with the individual family members and then the joint discussions, ended up with almost everyone understanding the others viewpoints.

TBagpuss

Pricivius wrote: »

Maybe I wasn't clear in my view on this, or perhaps we all disagree fundamentally! I am all for full disclosure and communication is key to everything we ever do if we are to get along and understand each other.

I guess the difference is that I do not equate an inheritance with how much somebody loved me, or how much they thought of me or where I was on the pecking order of children. I don't see the link. My father died and left me nothing. My step-father died and left me nothing. I know one loved me with all their heart and we had an incredibly close bond, whilst the other was little more than a stranger; their wills were irrelevant.

But maybe I'm taking too simplistic a view.

I'm not sure that you and I disagree.

I think the problem arises where people haven't spoken and don't understand the logic, and are left, after someone has died, wondering why they were 'left out'. And if it is further complicated by blended / second families, or where the family relationships have been 'wobbly' at any point. I believe very strongly that people are free to leave their money how they want, and that no-one has a 'right' to an inheritance. But if, with no prior discussion, I learned that my parents had left everything to my siblings and nothing to me, or everything to me and nothing to a sibling, I would want to understand why.

I have seen situations where people have left wills which caused huge distress to the family and it's often not about the money, it's about not understanding why a decision was made, or believing that the decisions reflect a value judgment made by the testator.

That's why I think that good communication is key .

Ziggazee

Ganga wrote: »

Its easy to say when it is not you but put yourself in the frame for one minute,you have four siblings and when the will is read out ( i know this is not done in reality )but imagine sitting there and your four siblings all get £50000 and you were left £100,dont tell me you would not feel let down or hurt.

Not at all. Not in the slightest. I'm just not money orientated in any way, shape or form. Tbh, I'd rather my parents enjoy their money and spend it when alive rather than leave it for greedy children to argue over.

Malthusian

Ziggazee wrote: »

Not at all. Not in the slightest. I'm just not money orientated in any way, shape or form. Tbh, I'd rather my parents enjoy their money and spend it when alive rather than leave it for greedy children to argue over.

Out of curiosity: what would a non money orientated person like yourself do if the hypothetical scenario was reversed, and you were told that you and three of your siblings were to inherit £50,000, and your fourth sibling inherited £100, with no reason given?

(Note that I didn't ask "what if you inherited £50,000 and your four siblings inherited £100 each" because that one's too easy.)