Options

Should children be entitled to a share of their parents' estate?

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I have read a number of stories of children being left out of parents'/parent's wills, often as a result of the parent marrying again and having other children. In same cases children are left out of both parent's wills due to the relationship breaking down.

I know in some countries, offspring have a legal right to claim a share of a parent's estate, so do you think this should apply in this country also? Should children fathered out of wedlock also have a claim to their father's estate, even if they had nothing to do with his family life?
«134

Comments

  • Options
    Hobbit FeetHobbit Feet Posts: 18,798
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You have the legal right to make a claim under the 'Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act'

    Though I suspect the only person who gets rich from this is your legal representative.
  • Options
    molliepopsmolliepops Posts: 26,828
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The children should get what the parents will to them, it is their estate to do with as they wish.
  • Options
    annette kurtenannette kurten Posts: 39,543
    Forum Member
    that`s for the dead to decide.
  • Options
    tellywatcher73tellywatcher73 Posts: 4,181
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think it should be up to the person who's leaving the money who it goes to. If my parents didn't leave me anything, I wouldn't contest it unless I was sure someone else was manipulating them.
  • Options
    TerraCanisTerraCanis Posts: 14,099
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What could be done to stop the parents' spending it all before they die?
  • Options
    tenofspadestenofspades Posts: 12,875
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    there shouldn't really be wills in the first place.
  • Options
    MoonyMoony Posts: 15,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The children should only get what their parents wish them to have.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Moony wrote: »
    The children should only get what their parents wish them to have.

    I disagree. Once you have a child, you have an unconditional duty to provide for that child. Baring very exceptional circumstances (e.g. the abuse of the parent/s by the child), parents who cut their children out of their wills are revolting.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    I have read a number of stories of children being left out of parents'/parent's wills, often as a result of the parent marrying again and having other children. In same cases children are left out of both parent's wills due to the relationship breaking down.

    I know in some countries, offspring have a legal right to claim a share of a parent's estate, so do you think this should apply in this country also? Should children fathered out of wedlock also have a claim to their father's estate, even if they had nothing to do with his family life?

    That's actually in virtually all European countries. I believe that England and Wales are the only countries where people do get the choice. My sister and her husband live in Belgium, and they decided that as they are knocking on a bit, they would make a will. The lawyer told them not to bother, because the kids will all get an equal share of the estate, and they can't do anything to change that.

    I believe that people should be allowed to choose who they leave their money to. Imagine you have three children, and you pay for two to go to university and go off abroad and make a fortune. The third one doesn't go to university and gets a low-paid job so he can stay nearby and look after you. You may decide that in recognition of his sacrifice you will leave your entire estate to him. And it doesn't even have to be a relation, it could be a friend of yours who has helped you out over the years. As long as the testator is of sound mind, he should be allowed to leave his money to whomsoever he wishes.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    I disagree. Once you have a child, you have an unconditional duty to provide for that child. Baring very exceptional circumstances (e.g. the abuse of the parent/s by the child), parents who cut their children out of their wills are revolting.

    Whilst they are children, not when they are adults.
  • Options
    tellywatcher73tellywatcher73 Posts: 4,181
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    I disagree. Once you have a child, you have an unconditional duty to provide for that child. Baring very exceptional circumstances (e.g. the abuse of the parent/s by the child), parents who cut their children out of their wills are revolting.

    Most people do provide for their children right into adulthood. Doesn't mean you still have to be doing it after you're dead. What if they are selfish little s***s that just abandon you when you're old and need their help? It happens a lot.
  • Options
    molliepopsmolliepops Posts: 26,828
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    there shouldn't really be wills in the first place.

    What would you do instead ?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    molliepops wrote: »
    What would you do instead ?

    Like I said upthread, in most countries they don't have them because the civil code decides who gets what.
  • Options
    MoonyMoony Posts: 15,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    I disagree. Once you have a child, you have an unconditional duty to provide for that child.

    Says who?

    Virtually every animal on the planets cuts their kids loose once they are old enough to fend for themselves - why is it different for humans.

    You have a duty to protect them and provide for them until such time as they can fend for themselves - I would agree - but beyond that its largely up to them.
  • Options
    Dare DevilDare Devil Posts: 118,737
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    It should be upto each individual to decide how their estate is split and to whom and this should always be stated clearly in a will. If there are children involved, the estate should not be automatically split between them; nor should the spouse be automatic next of kin.

    I know it's not nice to think about, but everyone should have a will, it makes things so go smoothly at a very difficult time. I cannot stress the importance of a will enough.
  • Options
    Dare DevilDare Devil Posts: 118,737
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    flobadob wrote: »
    Like I said upthread, in most countries they don't have them because the civil code decides who gets what.

    It shouldn't be upto the state to decide where an individual's money goes.

    What if a member of family has been disowned, for whatever reason, and that person is then given a sizeable chunk of the deceased estate, just because the state sees fit? How would that be fair?

    It should be upto each individual how and where their estate goes once they're no longer around. There is no other fairer way than that.
  • Options
    tellywatcher73tellywatcher73 Posts: 4,181
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dare Devil wrote: »
    It shouldn't be upto the state to decide where an individual's money goes.

    What if a member of family has been disowned, for whatever reason, and that person is then given a sizeable chunk of the deceased estate, just because the state sees fit? How would that be fair?

    It should be upto each individual how and where their estate goes once they're no longer around. There is no other fairer way than that.

    Totally agree with you, if you've worked and saved or bought a house, you should be able to decide who it goes to. Otherwise just spend the lot before you die :D
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dare Devil wrote: »
    It shouldn't be upto the state to decide where an individual's money goes.

    What if a member of family has been disowned, for whatever reason, and that person is then given a sizeable chunk of the deceased estate, just because the state sees fit? How would that be fair?

    It should be upto each individual how and where their estate goes once they're no longer around. There is no other fairer way than that.

    I agree. I was just explaining the situation in most European countries.
  • Options
    MoonyMoony Posts: 15,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Totally agree with you, if you've worked and saved or bought a house, you should be able to decide who it goes to. Otherwise just spend the lot before you die :D

    Yep - i'm going through the pearly gates in a Bugatti Veyron, backwards in a ball of flame. :D
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Moony wrote: »
    Yep - i'm going through the pearly gates in a Bugatti Veyron, backwards in a ball of flame. :D

    I can't afford one. I'm going to hell in a handcart.
  • Options
    MoonyMoony Posts: 15,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    flobadob wrote: »
    I can't afford one. I'm going to hell in a handcart.

    Depreciation ;)
  • Options
    MustabusterMustabuster Posts: 5,975
    Forum Member
    So the current generations sense of entitlement extends to everything they can get off their parents whilst they're alive and also beyond.
  • Options
    CreamteaCreamtea Posts: 14,682
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I have known the odd slovenly well off person who thoroughly expect to get lots of lovely cash when their parents bite the dust. This has resulted in said people being extremely bone idle. I don't think ANY kid has an automatic right to their parents money. It's not yours. You didn't earn a penny of it. Of course if the parents want to leave their money to their kids that's different. But if a parent has decided to leave their fortune to the local cats home, then tough sh!t frankly. :D I've told my parents to spend every penny. I don't want anything off them when they go, I'd rather they had some enjoyment out of what money they have. If they decided to sell their house and use every penny to travel round the world then I would be happy for them, I wouldn't be angry that they were spending "my" future money.
  • Options
    Dare DevilDare Devil Posts: 118,737
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    So the current generations sense of entitlement extends to everything they can get off their parents whilst they're alive and also beyond.

    I'm in my early 20's and don't have this sense of entitlement, never have, never will. Everything I have, either I've bought or it was a gift(s) off my mother after going through 18 months to two years of hell. If I want something, I never go to my mum (or anyone), I always save for it, then buy it, hence why my broken laptop is still broken.

    Not everyone has a sense of entitlement, it's actually very few.
  • Options
    Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,212
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    molliepops wrote: »
    The children should get what the parents will to them, it is their estate to do with as they wish.

    100% agree.

    I left home @ 16 to join the RAF and I've been financially independent of my parents since. If, when they die, they have left everything to the local cat's home, or they spend every penny doing what they want to do then I say fair play to them.

    I certainly wouldn't want my parents to put their lives on hold to protect what they might see as my inheritance. They have worked hard all their lives for what they have and it is up to them what they do with it as far as I'm concerned.
Sign In or Register to comment.