My mother has three children and we each have a different number of kids (3,2 and 1). My mother would like to give the grandchildren a substantial sum to help them out financially (probably around $100,000 in total) and there is disagreement about how it should be split. I know that it should be my mothers decision entirely but she is of course influenced by what her sons have to say. My preference is not to influence her decision at all but I would be interested to know how people think it should be split amongst the grandchildren. Obviously I am biased one way or another so it would be good to get other views on this. Thanks.
Financial Gift to Grandchildren When Parents Have Different Number of Kids
LPecker on 19/02/2018 - 16:51
Comments
70k/20k/5k/2k/2k/1k
What about by the actual weigh of the kids? Fat ones get more money because those Happy Meals aren't cheap.
higher health insurance costs later in life too
If the money is going to the grandchildren, wouldn't it just be equally shared between the six?
Yes, don't penalise some the grandkids because of how many siblings they have. They are the recipients and not their parents.
Split it evenly between all grandkids.
Same amount per kid. (The ones with less kids are still ahead, and it's only 16k per kid anyway.)
I think it's a no-brainer, split evenly between the 6.
The kids have no influence on how many siblings they have, and it sounds like it's the kids money, not the parents.
Welcome to Ozbargain..If your mother is on government benefits she should read this about how gifting can affect her benefits. https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/giftin…
What's the current proposal for splitting?
It is pretty obvious here OP is getting the short end of the stick, i.e. the family NOT with 3 children
too soon
read below
She wanted to split it evenly amongst the grandchildren but the son with one child didn't think this was fair and wants it split 1/3 to each of the sons to be split from there to the grand kids - which would mean one grand kid gets approx $33K, two get $16.5K, and three get $11K each.
Sounds like the parents want it for themselves.
If granny is subsidising the uni bills, it means the parents have less future cash outflow from their own pockets. It is the difference between $16.6k or $50k. It is an indirect effect.
Jeez
That's a d!ck move by him. It's for the kids not the parents. How could he possibly rationalise his position otherwise?
sounds like the son with only one child is a bit of an a$%#. SPlit it evenly, its not the kids fault that they have siblings, if anything, those with siblings have possibly had to do it tougher than the only child.
No, I don’t think splitting like that is fair at all. Divide by number of children - they have the same.
It is a gift for the grandchildren, not their parents, so it is totally up to your mother - it is her gift. Do the sons tell her what the grandchildren need for birthdays and Christmas.
Perhaps suggest that it is her decision and that she can do what she thinks is right. Advise her not to let anyone make decisions about it for her. Then perhaps ask her if she purchases gifts of similar value at other times, or splits as her sons are suggesting now?
As it is money, the greed is coming out.
I was also the one with only 1 son and I felt an equal divide by my step-father (and my own mother’s
Plan that didn’t eventuate) was slightly off (1 step-brother had 5 kids) but then I realised it was their decision. By the time my Mother died (I am her only child) - my step-brother’s 5 children got the lot. Everyone else zip. That hurt - especially when I had cared for her fo4 years and his family rarely visited. They only started doing things when she was diagnosed as terminally ill (3 months). Once her will was redone, they dumped her and hardly visited again!I bet they do.
Equally between the kids. It's obvious.Sounds like the parents want the money for themselves. She should seek legal and financial advice and consider setting up the money in trust for the kids. If she needs to dispense with the money for what ever reason then the parents can be trustees (as a group with a set of rules around it).
The trust is then able to outline the things the money can or cannot be used for, and nominate a financial manager to look after and grow the funds for the kids until they're old enough to receive the money.
What happens if another grandchild is born after the money is distributed? These are things she needs to consider and getting the correct advice (both legal and financial) would be in her interest.
Tell your mum to hold off the decision for another 9 months if she can so the son might try his luck increasing his share.
The grand kids get to do what they like with the money when they are 18 but they range from 13 to 22 years old. Mine are 13, 16 and 18 with the oldest starting university. They all have managed funds " in trust" for them and it would probably go into these. One of the sons has a 20 and 22 year old with the oldest looking to buy property and both working full time. The other has one child that is 13. I don't think the question is about what they will spend it on as some may not go to university. its just about how it should be split amongst the grandkids.
Firstly the grandparents should do what they wish.
My view is that the same amount per child is the only fair option.
Have the adult grandchildren visited their grandmother independently of their parents since becoming adults? If not, I personally would give them nothing.
Some years ago, my grandmother (now passed) gave each of her 10 grandchildren a Christmas present of $2,000 each. This was across her 4 children's families, ranging from 4 kids to zero. Each child got the same amount, irrespective of how many siblings they had.
Families and money are always a tricky combination.
The correct answer is whatever the grandmother wishes.
In my family, the lion's share goes to the boys, in particular the first boy of the first boy.
I appreciate that may not suit all families.
That option makes everything else look reasonable by comparison!
She should split it evenly between the grandkids. Since there is already disagreement my advise to her would be to speak with her bank and put the money in a trust account. When the child turns 18, it will automatically pay them that money.
That way
1) The parents have hands off
2) The money will incur interest and pay for them to do something they want to do.
Tell that douchebag brother of yours that he shouldn't get rewarded for having less kids.
Each grandchild deserves the same amount unless they are also a douchebag.
Get a lawyer to draft a letter with your mother's wishes. If your mother is on Centrelink, put that money aside into a will. Tell those kids they have to wait for their granny to die before they can touch the money.
"wait" for their granny to die
If it's a gift now, I agree with most people here that it should be split evenly. But if they're waiting until she dies, then it's more like inheritance. If she were to die without a will, her assets would be divided it into thirds between the three children. If they chose to pass it on to the grandchildren, you'd get the uneven split the brother proposes.
Uneven split is natural for inheritance. Even split if it's a gift.
Just ask the grandkids who would like to live with grandma for a year… Whom ever agrees to go gets to split the money those that don't go, gets didly squat
I have emailed your mum my bsb and a/c details. You no longer have this issue with your brothers.
Put them through the King Lear test.
Question is: does the son with one child rationalise his feelings because perhaps they have just started a family, and will have more children whereas on average the families with 2/3 kids are much less likely to breed further.
Hence he is campaigning for future child funds and is worried that this is a one off payout and his future child will be pennilessI think this is the true point of the story; its a bit unfair because someone breeds more there distribution is greater. What if one of the siblings had 10+ children, the others had 2/3… amplify the situation and it seems more preposterous.
I think it goes both ways… It would be truly fair if all the grandkids get the same amount - they are after all the actual people being given the gift. The gift has nothing to do with their parents.
F'ing greed…. The money goes to the grandchildren evenly. end of discussion
I think your brother is confusing two different situations here.
If your mother unfortunately died before gifting this money, you would each get a third of her estate (assuming a normal will). Once you die your children would get a third of your estate including your mothers money. Your brothers child will eventually get a %100 of his.
In this case, it is totally your mothers decision to treat each of her grandchildren equally and give them an equal share. It has nothing to do with inheritance. It is just a lovely gift. I think your brother is just worried that she is wasting "HIS" inheritance.
The Government is just as greedy. They will be onto your mother about giving away too much of her assets.
I totally understand where the other guy is coming from, she's spending some of the inheritance which would get split 3 ways when she passes, effectively taking money that would go to him and his kids later on if this wasn't done.
I personally would tell her to hold onto the money
It's a bad look to say, "Give my kid more!" Much nicer to say, "You hold onto it and we'll divide it up after you're gone."
how on earth is it fair to split the money between the 6 kids?
She should each give the parents the $33.3k and the parents split.
So what if the one churned out more kids?
Big deal !
Because it's not for the kids. It's for the grand kids.
lol at that logic.
"My kid deserves more money because I only have one."
Are there not going to be any more grand kids? Do they get nothing??
The per-family branch split is not as preposterous as most seem to think here.
If I was gran I'd put the money towards something that will keep the family together rather than cause conflict.
Not enough to buy a holiday home, but maybe put it in a family trust that can only be used for such a purpose??She should divide it among her kids, not grandchildren.
Imagine if she divided it among the 6 grandchildren now (in whatever percentage) and a few years later another grandchild is born, that child will get nothing. Dividing among her kids will atleast make it a possibility that all grandchildren (current and future) have a chance to inherit some.It's not an inheritance. It's a gift. Like if gran wanted to buy each grandchild an item, she should be free to go ahead and do it. For that matter, if nan wanted to spend every dime she had on touring the world or giving it to charity, the kids should have hardly any say in it. I find it very off-putting for children to consider it their inheritance when it hasn't been given to them yet. Until the time it is given, it is NOT their money.
It is very unlikely there will be more grand-children (the youngest are 13). I should also say that the total gift makes up less than 5% of her estate. I think there might be different responses if it made up a large portion of her estate.
Thanks for all the responses on this.
That changes the situation a fair bit. It should be split evenly amongst all grandchildren then. IMO
Tell her to keep the money. Make out a will which states they all get equal amounts when she passes that can be put into a trust till they are 18/20. That way of there are any more siblings they won't lose out and the parents don't have control of their money.
plus this way, it gives the grandkids some time to kill each other so that when she passes away they inherit more
Weighted in favour of her favourite kids and/or grand kids.