Should we split inheritance between our dead daughter's well-off son and our daughter or all four grandchildren? Money psychotherapist VICKY REYNAL replies

• e-mail

My wife and I are in our late 60s. Under normal circumstances we would leave our estate to our two wonderful daughters and split it 50/50. However, our eldest daughter, H, passed away ten years ago, leaving one son. 

His future is relatively secure with a substantial sum in a trust fund for when he reaches 21. Our youngest daughter, L, has three children. She and her husband both work and have a lovely home and are reasonably well-off.

We are considering two options – split equally between L and H’s son (so he inherits his mother’s 50 per cent) or do we divide it equally amongst our daughter L and all four grandchildren? 

Anonymous

'There is no right or wrong choice. What matters most is not how you split it, but how you get to the answer and how you communicate it,' Vicky Reynal writes

Money psychotherapist Vicky Reynal replies:  I am sorry that you suffered such a difficult loss. I think it’s important to emphasise two things. 

First, that money can carry a lot of meaning and we can make this 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 gap will always fall short of its goal: money cannot come close to compensating H’s family for their loss.

Usually, when it comes to dividing inheritance, most people’s debate is about whether to go with an equal or a ‘fair’ split, meaning they have to choose between giving the same amount to all parties/children/grandchildren or addressing issues of imbalance and going with a split that while uneven feels more ‘fair’.

For example, they might leave less to a child who has historically received more financially from the 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 who has more children, or a worse financial circumstance.

In your case, the first option (splitting it equally, 50-50, between H’s and L’s families) might offer you relief of having been equal with your daughters and maybe, to some extent, having addressed an unfairness in your grandchild’s situation, who was deprived of a mother. 

However, it sounds like L’s children are not financially in the same position of abundance and that they might benefit from the money more than H’s son. 

It would be an equal split, but it might not feel like a ‘fair’ split because L’s family doesn’t have a substantial trust to fall back on, and has more children.

The second option (20 per cent each) might offer you the relief of having been equal with your grandchildren as they all get the same share. 

However, it might also not feel fair, firstly because you are depriving H’s son of money he might have had access to had his mother been alive.

I think what might be making this decision difficult is that you might feel as if you are having to choose between an emotional fairness – giving to the family that has been most emotionally deprived – and a financial fairness – giving to the family who might need the money more. 

There is no right or wrong choice. 

What matters most is not how you split it, but how you get to the answer and how you communicate it. 

You need to be clear on why you made the choice you made, having thought through the pros and cons of each option.

Communicating the reasons to the family means that you don’t leave them confused, having to make assumptions or draw conclusions that might be far off the truth of your intentions. 

You could consider maybe doing a 30-70 split between the two families, explaining that neither 50-50 nor 20-80 felt right when you tried to take into account the financial reality of the two families and the tragic loss in H’s family.

Do you have a question for Vicky Reynal? If so email vicky.reynal@dailymail.co.uk