Family Property

Albermarle

Should I give them this letter now so I can answer their questions and then I can stop worrying about any repercussions. I know the boys will be fine but there are other relatives who could step in! 

Most people are pretty poor when it comes to understanding finance/trusts/wills etc,  so just from that point of view it would probably be a good idea to explain to them what the plan is, and why it is being done like that. 

Brenster

I understand your reasoning, but based on the assumption your house is 90% of your estate, you are proposing 1 son gets 95% of your estate and your other son 5%.  I understand one has done far more to assist with your care, but it sounds like this is because he has no other family and therefore can commit more time.  Whilst is commend him on this, and agree he is entitled to perhaps a larger portion of the property, i cant help feeling it may be unfair on your other son and cause resentment, i assume your other son is a good son, and does what he can, but has other family and household commitments.  Have you thought about leaving the property 75 / 25, with the express wish that your son with the 75% share has to purchase your other sons 25% at a value you can set out, so he can remain in the property and your other son can get some financial benefit. 
All percentages above have been mentioned for example purposes.

Cornish_mum

Hi I can understand your reasoning for your decision particularly given your younger son’s contribution in rent. I have personal experience of being the older sibling in a similar but not identical situation. 

I appreciated being told of the reasons why, have accepted the decision and have worked hard to not let it affect the relationship with my parents. As I appreciate the difficult decision they had to make. In my case the unequal split (given in life) is based on perceived need rather than contribution.

One thing that would have helped me, would have been my parents asking and listening to my point of view. (In my case I was extremely concerned about the lack of independent legal and financial advice they received and the ramifications on their well-being and long-term financial security. As all arrangements had been organised by my sibling. Very understandably my parents couldn’t accept that the proposed arrangement might be in the siblings best interest but not their’s.) I would advise you to try your upmost to ask for and listen to your eldest’s point of view, even if you don’t agree with it. CM 

Pat38493

I've heard topics like this discussed on IFA type podcasts and usually the advice is that if you are taking actions that could be perceived by one or other relative as unfair after your death, you should sit them down and explain it to them in advance - you may find that they are fine with it or you may find that one or other is not fine with it, but at least they will have the chance to ask questions and put their point of view.

Also - the fact that you have written them a letter and you seem to have currently told them not to open the letter until after your death, could seem to imply that you are anticipating that your elder son will have issue with it (even though you stated that you think he won't).

Inheriting a house is a life changing amount of money, so the son who doesn't inherit that house might take a different view about the fairness of it.

I've seen posts completely the other way around where parents were thinking of giving a much bigger share to one sibling because that sibling was perceived as "doing the right thing" in life by getting married, being responsible and successful etc.

This is an entirely personal viewpoint, but I would be very wary about giving different shares of my estate to different children based on perceived contributions to my wellbeing, bloodlines and suchlike - solicitors tend to make a lot of money out of such situations.

If your elder son is married, don't forget his wife will also have an opinion about it and an influence on him.

Without knowing the characters and histories involved it's difficult to comment any further, except to say that once you are gone, you won't be able to play any part in resolving any disputes or bad feelings that arise.

xylophone

Every LA is going to claim DOA in this potential situation.  

No - people are perfectly entitled to own their property as they wish.

As tenants in common, each owner is perfectly at liberty to leave his beneficial interest to spouse/child/ the local cats' home etc.

Each owner may also choose to set up an interest in possession trust for a spouse.

This is a common arrangement. See link in my post above.

Pat38493

xylophone said:

Every LA is going to claim DOA in this potential situation.  

No - people are perfectly entitled to own their property as they wish.

As tenants in common, each owner is perfectly at liberty to leave his beneficial interest to spouse/child/ the local cats' home etc.

Each owner may also choose to set up an interest in possession trust for a spouse.

This is a common arrangement. See link in my post above.

So to clarify based on the link you posted, and to use an extreme example, are you saying that for example if I have more health conditions than my wife and I think there's a higher chance I will need care home fees, I could put the house 90% to her and put it in a trust, and 10% to me and they cannot touch the 90%?  Obviously this would be risky if it went the other way around.

xylophone

  I knew a lady, (one of two siblings), whose brother had married and  bought a home for himself and his family at quite a distance from where their parents lived.

This lady, an only daughter, remained single and stayed with her parents.

When her father died, she inherited his beneficial interest in the family home.

Subsequently, mother developed  MS and as the disease progressed to the need for wheelchair and hoist stage,  my acquaintance became totally responsible for her day to day care care.  The son visited but  was taken up with business and young family.

The mother's will (drawn up by a solicitor) left her beneficial interest to my acquaintance so that when she eventually succumbed to the disease, my acquaintance became sole owner of the family home.

This led to a bitter dispute between the siblings. 

It might have been better all round for mother to have left a lifetime interest in possession to my acquaintance with her son/grandchildren as remainder men.

Pat38493

xylophone said:

This led to a bitter dispute between the siblings. 

It might have been better all round for mother to have left a lifetime interest in possession to my acquaintance with her son/grandchildren as remainder men.

I'm not sure what that last part means, but this is what I was trying to point out as well - I think that when people are cut out of their parents will on the basis that "they are ok as they have set up their own life, bought their own house etc etc", whilst a sibling who has stayed at home is left in, the reaction is not always as understanding as the parents might have expected when they were alive.  After all, to me it seems perfectly normal that people would leave home and set up their own lives when they are grown up and they should not be "punished" for that.

That said, I am a pretty easy going person and I am not sure if I would react badly to it if it was me - at least I might think it was a bit off but I probably wouldn't go to court about it or something like that - however it's easy for me to say that as I have made sure I am taken care of long term.  A lot of other people might take it as a point of principle.

Enufsed

I'm going to talk to both of my sons and, if it's OK, I'll let you know what's decided. 

Thanks for all your help and advice. 

ader42

Uneven splits in wills very often lead to siblings being divided for life.

Even if they tell you different right now.

If you want your sons to hate each other then go ahead and do as you intend.