Dear Richard Madeley: My son's a gambler – how can I sidestep him in my will without being unfair?

Telegraph

2 days ago

Dear Richard,
Last year I became a widow, and I now own outright a small cottage with a lovely garden. I live there with my 'prodigal son'. He was/is a gambler (officially he has stopped but I'm not so sure). My husband and I bailed him out many times until Gam-Anon informed us that this was 'enabling' – so we stopped.
However after my husband's death he moved in with me. He is pushing 55 and has a low-paid job and owes God knows how much to the taxman; I ask for only modest contributions to our day-to-day expenses (so I'm still effectively enabling him I suppose). It's not an ideal situation but I wasn't ready to live alone and I do rather like having him around.
I have four children in all; two of my three daughters 'married well' as we used to say and have plenty of cash; the third, my eldest, has not been so fortunate, but has always worked. I had intended to leave my cottage to her daughter, my eldest granddaughter, and the residue of my estate equally between my children.
I have floated this plan to my children and they grudgingly accepted that there is a case for favouring the grandchild who currently has no expectation of an inheritance; but three of the four are clearly not happy about the idea. Should I instead just split my estate equally between my children, knowing that there is at least a chance my son will simply squander his share?
– G, Wiltshire
Dear G,
First and foremost it's important to say that you are entitled to leave your estate to precisely who or what you want. If that happens to be the local duck sanctuary, so be it. But obviously you care what your children think about your plans, otherwise you wouldn't be agonising like this and you wouldn't have written to me.
On the face of it, the proposal to leave your cottage to your granddaughter seems somewhat arbitrary. You don't offer any clear reasoning for this, and judging by your children's grumpy reaction to the news, they're puzzled and irritated by it.
If it's simply a way of safely siphoning off a significant chunk of your estate so that your son cannot be tempted to gamble it away, that certainly does seem rather unfair on his siblings. Why should they miss out because of his past (and possibly present/future) fecklessness? I'm not surprised they're a bit miffed.
I can only tell you what I would do, G. I'd split the lot four ways and leave equal shares to all my children, thus banishing any resentment or acrimony at a stroke. I may be tempted to put the son's quarter into some kind of trust, perhaps buy him an annuity, so he couldn't squander the lot in a spectacular fall from grace. But perhaps that's something you should talk to your lawyer about.
Overall, though, I believe in treating children equally in a last will and testament, unless there are compelling reasons to favour one or some over others. I can't see that being the case here, so my advice is summarised in the acronym I've quoted here several times before: KISS. Keep It Super Simple.