Mabey so. Wont stop me bringing it up IF she demands an equal share. She is the type to try and get more if she can, no matter who she pee's off along the way.
Family dispute incoming
- Thread starter potatolord
- Start date
That's the bit I don't understand, people dismissing that as some trivial thing because it's about money, but it's huge amount for most people. No need to sweat the smaller stuff - parents might traditionally pay for a daughter's wedding and a son might have his wedding partly funded by his fiancee's family. One sibling might stay in uni longer, some family holidays might not be attended by both etc.. But 300k is a large sum/asset to give away and a significant difference in terms of potential quality of life + just not treating the two kids equally.
I wonder if people who think he should suck it up would act differently re: the following scenario. Suppose the OP and his sister have two kids but, for both his sister's kids his mum put thousands into a child ISA for them but for his kids she gave nothing - assume all kids born around the same time.
Would people still say it has nothing to do with the OP and it's his mum's choice, no need for her to justify it or discuss it with anyone? Or would they be a bit miffed that she's favouring two of the grandkids above the other two?
Not to mention that a 300k gift has knock-on effects that would impact grandkids to an even greater extent.
^This.
Whether the distribution is objectively "fair" in this example is perhaps another matter. But if you are sufficiently wealthy, giving money to your children whilst you are still alive seems the smart approach, rather than sitting on assets that you are never going to use and will be subject to inheritance tax. Plus your children get to enjoy the benefit now, rather than waiting until after you die and probate has finally been granted.
The example you give is my opinion too.
We can only assume that both OP and sibling are both "liked" by the mum.
But it appears that one sibling has been majorly favoured.
Unless I missed it in the huge thread there seems no "fair" reason why this is the case.
Its fair in that it's her money. But it's not the right thing to do imo.
By all means spend it all (the mum) but giving unequally within family is something I wouldn't be pleased about.
All things being equal your example of the grand kids is fair. Imagine giving it all to one and not the other.
Must be some reason to give a house to one and not the other.
Man of Honour
No payments, we live there and pay the bills until we die and it's all protected from the Government getting their hands on it to pay for care etc.
I think your mother thought more highly of you than you did of yourself.
The fact you offered your inheritance to you sister after your mum died means your mum was most likely right
My Mum never told me she loved me, my Mum left me when I was 16 to live in Nigeria and so on.
I knew how much my Sister did for my Mum later on in life at least 10 years before the will and my Mum dying.
My eldest cousin told me and my Sister last year "You had a *** Mum and Dad".
Associate
okay okay this is something the OP has to try and have a sit down see whats what, but for us we need pics of sister and mum.
Which is fine. However, when a family member is essentially conning the parents... the rest of the family will get pay back at some point.
It's not small sums over many years. There are 9 Children in the family. One is bleeding the parents dry.
Last edited:
Slightly of topic, but this is really where parents really need to take some responsibility and sit down with the kids and have a family meeting explaining what the assets are, whats in thier wills, and why (if) some are getting more than others.
It almost seems cowardly not to, or maybe that's too strong of a word, but at best it's setting the children up for a big hoo-har when they die and the fighting over the scraps begins - "so and so got a rent free house for ten years and then bought it off the parents under market value, so I should get the other house and 60% of liquids assets etc, etc.
I think a lot of the time people bury thier heads in the sand when it comes to these things though, which can often result in huge resentment whilst they are alive and a needless bun fight after they die... legal fights over inheritence get VERY expensive VERY quickly and the estate can even be consumed completley with solicitors fees.
It also prevents one sibling 'having the ear' of the parents and pushing affairs to thier advantage with the parents being potentially oblivious... Think Gríma Wormtongue whispering into king Theodens ear in Lord of the rings, to the point he banishes his most loyal generals into the wilderness.
A frank and open family meeting, 'chaired' by the parents, along with properly drawn up wills keeps everything transparent, and prevents huge bust ups and misunderstandings, etc... I think parents really have a moral duty to do that, when the time is appropriate, of course.
Last edited:
I'll raise this i think as a thing to do when the time comes.
That does sound logical. However, it assumes that the parents feel obliged to explain exactly what they are doing with their own money. In my experience it's often people who already have a lot of money that are the most obsessed by it and determined to get what they feel entitled to as their share, rather than respecting the wishes of their parents. So I can see why parents might not want to have that conversation and kick off a family row and instead just deal with it it their will.
Also, the reality is that in a lot of families the parents actually make things worse by moaning about their children behind their backs and perhaps setting false expectations that one is more deserving or will be better rewarded than another. Only recently I had a conversation with someone who was talking about her family history and said that her mother (now deceased) was always causing trouble between her children and trying to play one off against another. Apparently the children (two male and two female who were all adults at this point) came to an agreement that whenever the mother played that game they wouldn't argue with her, but whoever was in the loop would tell the rest of them what was going on. That way the siblings avoided falling out and were kept aware that their mother never had a good word to say about any of them behind their backs.
Soldato
We had a little bit of this when my father died. I have two much younger half sisters so was made a trustee of their part of their inheritance. It caused a bit of resentment. I really wish my dad had spoken to them (and their mother) more directly before he passed.
There was nothing particularly controversial about the way the will was written up. But it would have made my life a lot easier if they had heard it from him.
Thankfully it hasn’t caused any long term damage to the relationship I have with my sisters, but it easily could have done.
Yeah. Or another example... say it was 300K but instead of a house the sister received:
Lambos on the drive
Multiple holidays
Jewellery
And for the OCUK massive, Gucci belts and bags a plenty
etc
Ridiculous right...but it's the same cash value. It's no less ridiculous on principal. This is essentially what one has had and the other not in terms of imbalance.
Soldato
hi mum, i know this is none of my business but i need to ask, simply to make sure nothing untoward is going on. it's come to my attention that sis owns your holiday home she's been living in for however long, that's cool and all but when i asked you about it you said you still owned the house. now ordinarily i'd not give a toss, it's your house and all that but i'm just concerned why you felt the need to cover it up. i honestly don't care you've given her the house but i just want to make sure that was something you were happy and willing to do and not something you were maybe talked or pushed into and i only mention that as i can't see why you'd not have just told me.
Soldato
This is not how I would word it. Even without the lie it’s a problem imo. She doesn’t have to explain herself, but without one I would make it clear it’s going to affect our relationship.
If parents want to spend their money travelling the word, or expensive cars, whatever… that is their business. But handing over a house to one sibling over another just isn’t cricket.
Unless they can rationalised why, how can you take that in any other way than personally?
Last edited:
I'm in a simmilar situation with my niece...as executor I have to hold on to her 60odd grand until she reaches 21, as per my grandmothers (her great-grandmothers) will. It's a legal obligation on me as executor to follow the will and there's no question, that's excactly what I will do.
My Nan had previously told her that's what will happen (without mentioning the amount of money, which is huge for a 21yo lass) so it's all straight down the line and proper and transparent...
I just hope when the time comes she uses the money for a house deposit/education/something usefull, it's a potentially life changing amount of cash for someone so young if used wisely, it's also very easy to pee that sort of money up the wall in a matter of months with a few 5* hollidays and buying a fancy car, and...then it's gone.
It's quite a burden, but I have no choice but to dump all that cash on her when she hits 21, regardless of anything else, I'm legally bound to.
I will try to coach her into being sensible...wish me luck! lol!
Last edited:
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
Some of us don't even think once ^_^'
Associate
You OK hun
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
That's not legal, unless it's been put in to a trust and you've already paid the tax on that. If you gift your main residence to your kids but still live in it then it would be included in IHT,l unless you pay your kids rent at market value.;
I'm pretty sure there's a similar rule for care assessment too.
Gift with a reservation of benefit
There are some exceptions to this rule. If you retain an interest in the property – for example, you continue to live in the home rent-free – then you are making a “Gift With a Reservation of Benefit.” HMRC will not recognise a gift with a reservation of benefit and the property will be included in the estate when calculating the IHT bill.For a gift to be treated as a genuine gift, you must leave your home forever (as if you had sold it) or pay market rent (in which case your child will have to pay income tax on the rent they receive).
Last edited:
Soldato
Never told a little white lie to find out some info before? Going in all guns blazing or revealing your hand too soon is never a good strategy.
I'm not sure that matters if the house owner lives longer than 7 years after giving the gift?