How do u handle wanting to give one child more inheritance

I think that if it is a serious debilitating condition which affects their ability to work then the other siblings should understand.
But discuss it first.
If they don’t appreciate the dilema, they need to consider themselves lucky to have received the good fortune of not having the same medical condition.

However I think, if the medical condition doesnt affect their ability to earn an income, it should be 50/50.

 

So do you. I'm sure they don't need to be told. They live with their sibling, don't they? Probably a lot more compassionate and empathetic than most.

 

So why is the OP asking on a forum how to do this? I get the impression that they are worried about issues this may cause.
Plus, it’s wrong to assume they are sympathetic about it..

 

I don't know why she is asking this on a property forum. I actually would never do this myself especially as it invites thoughtless comments such as yours. To me, she is putting her own children in the line of fire from people like you.
Can I ask why you think it is their responsibility any more than it is yours?
In fact, I know my mother used to get very annoyed with her own parents when they told us to be good for Mum because she had a handicapped daughter to look after. It just illustrated how little they understood about the situation and how ineffectual they were themselves. Of course we brothers and sister cared about our sister and our mother and a lot more than anyone else did.
Now that my mother has passed away, I am responsible for everything to do with my sister. I'm not paid and it's time-consuming and it costs me and to be honest, it's difficult always trying to manage institutions and carers and finances. However, she is my sister and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Why is it wrong to assume the siblings are sympathetic? Actually, I said compassionate and empathetic. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and I would encourage you to spend some time with handicapped children and their brothers and sisters and try to imagine what it would be like to spend your childhood looking after a handicapped brother or sister.
I also recommend that @justine77 consider her children's point of view and not offer them up to a property forum.

 

You have completely over exaggerated what I even said in the first place!

What I said is, if they can’t understand why their parents leave their sibling with a medical condition MORE inheritance than them, then maybe the siblings need to have a think about how fortunate they are that they themselves are in good health.

Geez.. unsure what you’re even getting upset about . I’ve said nothing wrong or offensive.

The OP also has done nothing wrong but ask a legitimate question.
Also, not all siblings are necessarily considerate when it comes to division of inheritance. This happens all the time, hence all the contested wills in court.

That was my point , excuse me if I used “sympathetic” rather than your exact terms

 

I would say that your comments speak for themselves.

 

hugs - think you might be being a little sensitive due to your own situation. Take my hat off and admire you greatly as caring can be so frustrating, but also rewarding ... just make sure you take time to charge your own batteries first xx

The OP did not state what the situation actually was so any comments are made on assumptions

 

Thanks tor the hugs.
However, the question itself is quite weird as the government of any given day basically cares for people with special needs. Money is generally the least concern of a disabled person in Australia today - what a blessing! More likely, a disbled person needs companionship, loyalty, routine and work.
I don't think I'm being overly sensitive. Rather, I consider most people ignorant and unexposed. In such cases, they are better off taking information in and holding off from opining.
When someone is really disabled/handicapped, most family members will steer clear of such conversations because the ignorance we put up with is generally considered not worth the effort. It's not a conversation that you want to get yourself into. Hope that doesn't offend anyone but you can see why I also kinda don't care if I do, too.

 

That's why I read the OP as a medical condition - which is what they said - rather than a disability.

 

I believe as a general principle, this is a concern only in NSW which has the principle of a "notional estate". Gifts up to 3 years prior to death can be "clawed back" into the deceased's estate, though the test in the first year is different than in years 1-3 prior to death. See more here: What happens if the deceased gave away their property before they died? I'm not aware of analogous provisions in other states but cannot rule out their existence and you should seek advice.

This may seem logical from a financial perspective, but from the perspective of preserving family relationships it is courting disaster. The money spent on an independent trust manager is usually money well-spent. Better the siblings all get angry with a third party than with the poor sod you've nominated to look after the family money.

Truer words never spoken! If somebody's really hopeless and needs looking after, put money in a trust and appoint an independent trustee - preferably not a relative, for the same reasons outlined above to Beano - to dole out money to them for purposes that you specify. Any succession (wills and estates) lawyer can help you draw this up.

With respect to the OP's query about a family member with particular medical / disability challenges, there are succession lawyers who specialise in writing wills and other plans to ensure family members in precisely this kind of situation are taken care of after their parents' deaths, eg Disability Law Queensland

 

My personal opinion is that inheritance should be divided equally. Doing it any other way could cause resentment between the siblings which might be a far worse scenario for the child with the medical problem. For example, siblings might not want to provide practical help or emotional support to the child with medical problems due to resentment. You can't predict the future either, so don't really know what the long-term health of your other children will be. For all you know, after you die, one of the other kids may end up with a serious medical condition of their own. Would it then seem fair that they were not provided for as well as the other child?

 

Funny
Many years back when our kids asked how many IPs we own and whether they are owned outright and whether we will leave any to them.
Yes we said, the ones we own millions of debt on, their reply was, "That's unfair, who will pay them off?".
We thought this was so funny....
Recently I showed the older one what is involved each month, the paperwork, plus I started some education to them, and the reply was, "How can I do all this and have a full time job, this is so much work?". And my reply was, "...And your job is not much work?".
Perhaps the message one day will sink in, as one of my favourite quotes by Jim Rohn is:

Learn to work harder on yourself than you do on your job. If you work hard on your job you'll make a living, if you work hard on yourself you can make a fortune

 

I have an aunt that was hit by a drunk driver. Got pretty messed up physically and neurologically. If she was my sister and received more. I would not complain. I know some may say 'its easy to say that hypothetically'. But it is true. If a blood relative has a serious medical condition, then what kind of person would I be to suggest they should not get more to help with their illness? Basic morality from my point of view. Really what has the world come to?

 

I think where it goes wrong is if the testator estimates the needs incorrectly and leaves more than the aunt needs, or the aunt finds herself with a largesse, and then others get resentful.

eg The aunt really only needs, say, $200K to cover all her additional expenses as a result of her injury, but the testator leaves her, say, $1M more than her siblings.

Then the siblings notice their "disabled" sibling is living in a much nicer house and driving luxury cars while they're just getting by, and all of a sudden it's not so clear-cut that "of course they're fine with their sibling getting more".

Alternatively, the aunt gets $200K more, but doesn't spend any of it on their needs, but blows it all on gambling or holidays or nice cars. Watch how much the other siblings "don't mind" when that happens.

How do you avoid that eventuating? Consult a succession lawyer, who will almost certainly foresee exactly those events unfolding, and recommend setting up a trust for the disabled sibling's additional needs with an independent trustee, and dividing the remainder equally, rather than allocating a larger amount to the disabled sibling. (Because they've seen precisely those scenarios many times before.)

 

Unequal portions usually guarantees a court case where the decision of how much is allocated to each party is decided by the court. This will probably cost more than the portion argued about ..

 

I will be leaving my estate over 2 generations. I have been a beneficiary of my grandfathers estate in recent years and can whole heartedly say his wealth has benefited more than just his childrens generation. By splitting it over the two generations it now helps the 3rd generation in quicker time allowing me to set up for my children. I think this is the greatest gift and also "spreads the risk" so the legacy lives on. My cousin (another grandchild) contested the will and we had to adhere to an out of court settlement, to preserve the estate, so I have seen first hand how this can devastate a family. In our case all the grandchildren had an equal 10% share each but she felt entitled to more. Money/wealth can bring out the worst in people so if I can avoid conflict within my family at any cost, I will. Even to the point of distributing 90% of it prior to my death if possible. Equal portions is key IMO.

 

And what many don't realise is that unless the challenge is almost completely without foundation, the legal costs of challenges to a will - a family provision applications - of both sides are usually met partly or wholly by the estate, so unlike in many other types of litigation where costs act as some barrier, there is often little disincentive for aggrieved relatives not to challenge.

I recall a case discussed at a conference recently where a $1.8M estate was reduced to $300K once challenges were concluded. (And this is far from the most expensive case in terms of $ costs expended, just a notable one in percentage terms of the estate squandered.)

 

I agree that it can really set up the grandchildren that way. I seem to have a number of friends who are raising families in small apartments / units while their parents rattle around in large houses with empty rooms and large yards

 

Of course there's the scenario regarding children from previous relationships too

There are certainly exceptions to the equal division

 

Sounds as though you have a moral obligation to make a greater provision for the health impaired child. Shld you not, that child cld seek a greater disposition to him or her from your estate through the courts and would more likely than not be successful.