Supporting one grandchild financially?

Norah maybe my point isn't clear. Let's say you don't have a house, dont have large savings so you can't leave them more to make up for helping her do you still help one child when you can't do it for the others. Some seem to think that is unfair but I would do it

Can I suggest that, rather than give him cash, you buy him a grocery gift card from Sainsbury’s or similar which he can use to buy his weekly food for perhaps his first term. Then if he runs out of cash he will always be able to feed himself. No need to tell the other GCs but do something similar for them if they ever have a special event in the future,.

theworriedwell

My point was what if you couldn't give an equivalent amount to the DDs who didn't need to live with you.

My answer is the same. No change.

She and her children lived with us.

We transfered funds to our other daughters, however, as I said 'Had the number been enormous, we'd have new wills. The number, adjusted for inflation, would be paid before equal estate division to all.'

My point was what if you couldn't give an equivalent amount to the DDs who didn't need to live with you.

theworriedwell

Norah

We were scrupulously equal. Until we weren't. Our daughter's husband died, she and her children lived with us several years.

No problem whatsoever. It was pointed out that could affect our other daughters financially. We worked out a number, divided by 3, transfered the sum to our other three daughters.

Had the number been enormous, we'd have new wills. The number, adjusted for inflation, would be paid before equal estate division to all.

What.woild have happened if you couldn't give the other three the money? Would you have had to make your DD and her children homeless?

I don't understand your question.

I was, in fact, answering 'if you gave one child money 15 years before your death, do you say that you want the equivalent sum to go to the others, with adjustments made for inflation, or work out what the sum means as a rough percentage of your estate and split the remainder accordingly?'

She and her children lived with us. We transfered funds to our other daughters, however, as I said 'Had the number been enormous, we'd have new wills. The number, adjusted for inflation, would be paid before equal estate division to all.' What are you asking?

We were, imo, fair to all of our daughters.

Who knows how much will be left in our estates if money is needed to pay for care? My children know they may not get anything if there is no residual estate, whilst the grandchildren will get a small specific legacy each.

I think that considering someone else's money as one's own is incredibly entitled. There is no 'my' 50% of a parent's money - it is 100% theirs to do with as they please

How reassuring to read this! When I read the post above that one, I was beginning to think I was living in a different kind of world where children think they are entitled to what they consider their rightful share of their parents' money.

Norah

We were scrupulously equal. Until we weren't. Our daughter's husband died, she and her children lived with us several years.

No problem whatsoever. It was pointed out that could affect our other daughters financially. We worked out a number, divided by 3, transfered the sum to our other three daughters.

Had the number been enormous, we'd have new wills. The number, adjusted for inflation, would be paid before equal estate division to all.

What.woild have happened if you couldn't give the other three the money? Would you have had to make your DD and her children homeless?

dragonfly46

We lend/give money to the one who needs it at the time. Each of our two children is aware how much we have given and neither resents the other, in fact our DD thinks it right that our DS has had fractionally more as she says his need is greater.
The love in our family is not based on money.

Yes need. Imagine if my child needed £4k towards IVF. Say I have £4k I can give but oh no we must treat everyone to he same so my 4 all get £1k. Doesn't solve the IVF problem and the others didn't need the £1k. What use is that. Thankfully mine would have no issue with me helping the one in need.

Exactly dragonfly46 love isn't measured in pounds and pence. Different needs require different deeds but as long as it all stems from love my children couldn't care less.

We lend/give money to the one who needs it at the time. Each of our two children is aware how much we have given and neither resents the other, in fact our DD thinks it right that our DS has had fractionally more as she says his need is greater.
The love in our family is not based on money.

It was a serious 'need' not a frivolous 'want'.

We were scrupulously equal. Until we weren't. Our daughter's husband died, she and her children lived with us several years.

No problem whatsoever. It was pointed out that could affect our other daughters financially. We worked out a number, divided by 3, transfered the sum to our other three daughters.

Had the number been enormous, we'd have new wills. The number, adjusted for inflation, would be paid before equal estate division to all.

theworriedwell

Doodledog

I'm not asking for specifics - I'm just musing - but in a general sense, how do you reserve a sum in your will for those who were not given cash when you are alive? I mean that if you gave one child money 15 years before your death, do you say that you want the equivalent sum to go to the others, with adjustments made for inflation, or work out what the sum means as a rough percentage of your estate and split the remainder accordingly?

I don't balance it out, I give when needed and when I die it just gets divided equally. So like with the uni situation one got more as they needed more, later one got help with IVF. I'm not going to fund IVF for someone with no fertility issues. Another got help when GC was struggling and we paid for private diagnosis as waiting lists so long. The 4th had the biggest wedding and we helped with that. I've never actually compared what each got, I'd struggle to remember the exact figures now as they probably would.

There have been other things along the way like they all got money for kitting out nurseries for new babies.

That's what we've done up to now. I was just wondering in case something comes up and we need to think about it. In case of need we'd probably just do what we could, but if it were a case of 'want' (eg work on a house) it might be different.

fancythat

^you want the equivalent sum to go to the others, with adjustments made for inflation,

This one.

Which requires a new will.

Thanks.

^you want the equivalent sum to go to the others, with adjustments made for inflation,

This one.

Which requires a new will.

Doodledog

I'm not asking for specifics - I'm just musing - but in a general sense, how do you reserve a sum in your will for those who were not given cash when you are alive? I mean that if you gave one child money 15 years before your death, do you say that you want the equivalent sum to go to the others, with adjustments made for inflation, or work out what the sum means as a rough percentage of your estate and split the remainder accordingly?

I don't balance it out, I give when needed and when I die it just gets divided equally. So like with the uni situation one got more as they needed more, later one got help with IVF. I'm not going to fund IVF for someone with no fertility issues. Another got help when GC was struggling and we paid for private diagnosis as waiting lists so long. The 4th had the biggest wedding and we helped with that. I've never actually compared what each got, I'd struggle to remember the exact figures now as they probably would.

There have been other things along the way like they all got money for kitting out nurseries for new babies.

I'm not asking for specifics - I'm just musing - but in a general sense, how do you reserve a sum in your will for those who were not given cash when you are alive? I mean that if you gave one child money 15 years before your death, do you say that you want the equivalent sum to go to the others, with adjustments made for inflation, or work out what the sum means as a rough percentage of your estate and split the remainder accordingly?

We helped one of ours out more than the others.
But it was and is on the strict proviso that the others get the same amount from our wills, or sooner.
They all understood and agreed.
One at least was relieved that we were helping the one out.

Ah, ok. I wasn't making a derogatory comment - I didn't understand, as 'erstwhile' is usually used to describe someone who once occupied a role but is not doing so at present (eg a president or chairperson), so the role is still there, but currently filled by someone else. I think you mean 'estranged' brother, but anyway, it doesn't matter.

We all see these things differently, but as the will included grandchildren, as opposed to excluding you (eg by giving your brother the lion's share all to himself), I wouldn't see that as a slap in the face at all - as I say, I know that my mother's will does likewise and it doesn't upset me. If she has money left to leave when the time comes I will be grateful for it, and not resent the fact that my sister's side of the family will get more than either my brothers' or my own.

You do come across as thinking that life has been unfair to you, which is not an attitude that will ever make you happy. If you think you were born with the right to own a home because your parents did, to have half of the money they earned and saved to leave to charity instead of to their descendants, to be entitled to stay in an office job because you once had one and to have been more of a success than your brother because you are so much more intelligent, you are doomed to feel bad, as life doesn't work like that. We all make choices, and whilst life is kinder to some than to others, in the end we have to make our own way, and are entitled to nothing.

Oh sorry, when you used to post on the MSE forums I thought you'd severed contact then, I remember you didn't like your brother's children, didn't buy them presents or have contact with them.
I'm surprised feeling how you do that you've maintained contact until quite recently.

Swop "decades" to "few years" - we are talking about the 2020s. We are still in the 2020's.

When someone tried to query my use of the word "erstwhile" a while back and make derogatory comments about it - yep.....it is very much a valid and used word still and means "former/used to be". I told him what I thought of him and broke contact in the 2020s.

Understandably in the circumstances - it was very clear my mother was punishing me for moving to Wales (the date on the new will was literally the day after I'd said I'd made an offer on my current house). She would have known I'd realise she'd deliberately "done a virtual slap across the face" for making my own decisions. That date hit me straight in the face the second I read the Will - just as she meant it to.

kittylester

Our family works on 'equity not equality' as a principle. We do what we can to fit particular circumstances on the basis that it will all even out eventually.

Yes that's a good way to describe it. For example with our two youngest we helped one at uni much more than the other. One had fees of £3k, no bursary just loan. The other had no fees and £2k a year bursary per year so not sure why I'd split the money I had evenly when the need wasn't even.

Doodledog I'm glad it isn't just me that was baffled by the marriage mention.

I wonder CariadAgain how you know so much about your brother's financial circumstances, actions, intentions etc when you have had absolutely nothing to do with him for decades?
The money your mother left was hers to leave. That she left it in an uneven split was her choice to make. You can choose to see it as hurtful, or you could choose to see it as her valuing all four of her descendants equally. Perhaps if you could adopt and accept the latter version you could feel less angry?

CariadAgain

Rosie - you are ignoring a very relevant fact - that there had been an (unprompted) promise. Made quite a few times.

People are likely to remain well aware of how they've been told things are....rather than "shrug in insouciance and forget it".

In that case we might as well forget about the whole idea of marriage in our society - as it's an unprompted promise - on which people are entitled to assume accordingly. We know things may change after the event in that case - one party unfaithful to the other one or one turns out to be violent or getting into loads of debt. But they've made that (marriage in this case) promise and so - bar something nasty turning up "in the woodpile" = that's how it is.

Why make a promise if you have no intention of keeping it? Save your breath instead and say nowt.....

What has marriage got to do with it?

People are at liberty to promise one another that they will stay together (or whatever other promises they choose to make), and that has nothing to do with anyone else.

It's not at all the same as leaving money behind. If I knew that one of my children would so bitterly resent my leaving money to my grandchildren because they had no children, I might not bother to let them know my intentions. Why give yourself grief? I would be disappointed if either behaved like that though - like Rosie's children they are supportive of one another and each is happy for the other to be helped when they need help.

I'm not sure what an erstwhile brother is - have you estranged him because of this?