<!–
<!–
<!– <!–
<!–
<!–
<!–
My wife and I are over 60 years old. Under normal circumstances, we would leave our property to our two wonderful daughters and split it 50/50. However, our eldest daughter, H, passed away ten years ago, leaving a son.
His future is relatively secure with a substantial sum in a trust fund by the time he turns 21. Our youngest daughter, L, has three children. Both she and her husband work, have a beautiful house and enjoy a reasonable financial situation.
We are considering two options: split it equally between L and H’s son (so he inherits 50 percent from his mother) or split it equally between our daughter L and the four grandchildren.
Anonymous
‘There is no right or wrong choice. What matters most is not how to break it down, but how to get to the answer and how to communicate it,” writes Vicky Reynal.
Money psychotherapist Vicky Reynal responds: I’m sorry you suffered such a difficult loss. I think it’s important to emphasize two things.
First, that money can have a lot of meaning and we can make it explicit by telling the family what we want the money to represent.
Secondly, that the meaning is only symbolic and that money given to fill an emotional void will always fall short of its goal: the money cannot come close to compensating H’s family for their loss.
Typically, when it comes to dividing inheritance, most people’s debate revolves around whether to make an equal or “fair” division, meaning they have to choose between giving the same amount to all parties. /children/grandchildren or address issues of imbalance and go with a split that, while unequal, feels more “fair.”
For example, they might leave less to a child who has historically received more financially from their parents to balance things out, or they might leave more to the family that has to deal with a disability or an expensive illness or has more children, or a worse financial situation.
In your case, the first option (splitting it equally, 50-50, between the H and L families) could offer you relief for having been equal to your daughters and perhaps, to some extent, having addressed an injustice in your daughters’ situation. his grandson, who was deprived of a mother.
However, it appears that L’s children are not in the same position of abundance financially and could benefit from the money more than H’s child.
It would be an equitable division, but it might not seem like a “fair” division because L’s family does not have a substantial trust to fall back on and has more children.
The second option (20 percent each) could offer you the relief of having been equal to your grandchildren, since they all receive the same share.
However, it may not seem fair either, firstly because it is depriving H’s son of money that he could have had access to if his mother had been alive.
I think what might make this decision difficult is that you might feel like you have to choose between emotional justice (giving to the family who has been most emotionally deprived) and financial justice (giving to the family who might need the help). money more.
There is no right or wrong choice.
What matters most is not how to break it down, but how to get to the answer and how to communicate it.
You need to be clear about why you made the decision you did, after you have thought about the pros and cons of each option.
Communicating your reasons to the family means that you won’t leave them confused, having to make assumptions or draw conclusions that could be far from the truth of your intentions.
You might consider doing a 30-70 split between the two families, explaining that neither 50-50 nor 20-80 seems right to you when you try to take into account the financial realities of the two families and the tragic loss of H’s family.
Do you have any questions for Vicky Reynal? If so, please email vicky.reynal@dailymail.co.uk.
This is the money podcast