Moral Money: 'My dying neighbour asked me to look after her cat. Now I have to spend a fortune on vets' bills. Can I have it put down?'

Our reader was asked to look after a much-loved tabby cat - Guelph Humane Society

In this week's Moral Money we publish your responses to the dilemma we published last week about the best way to split an inheritance between one son with children and another without. We also pose a new question, this time about how much to spend on a sick animal, and invite your responses. 

This week's question

"Just before she died, my neighbour asked me to take on the care of her beloved tabby cat. I happily agreed, but now the cat has been diagnosed with a medical condition that will require expensive treatment, possibly for years, that I cannot really afford. I don't have any pet insurance. Am I under a moral obligation to look after the cat no matter how much it costs, or would I be justified in having it put down?"

Readers can send their responses to each week's questions by emailing moralmoney@telegraph.co.uk

Put any question to us (and you can do so anonymously) and each week we'll publish a summary of the best responses. At the same time we will also pose the next week's question.

Last week's question... 

"I have £800,000 to give to my two sons. One has no children of his own (and does not plan to have any) and the other has three children under 10. How should I split the cash? I feel I should give more to my son who has children, as he will have higher costs over his life, but is that unfair to my other son? Both have a similar income."

...and what you said

'Minimise inheritance tax by leaving it all to the grandchildren'

You should always leave assets to the lowest generation of your descendants who can inherit it to reduce the number of times inheritance tax is paid. So you should leave your entire £800,000 to your grandchildren who are alive at your time of death to be split equally. If only one of your children has had children then so be it. 

WL, via email

'Discuss it first or expect relationships to be strained'

I am in a similar position to that of your son with no children. I have no children and have a brother with two small children.

If I was faced with an unequal inheritance from my parents in favour of my brother I think I would be quite disappointed - not for money reasons, but from a personal perspective. This stance would appear to be that you have a "favourite" and are rewarding one child for making certain life choices or penalising your other child for not. 

A way around this may be to reward your grandchildren directly with some of the £800,000 or set up some kind of trust for when they turn 18. That way you would not be seen as treating either child unfairly but supporting your extended family.

Depending on your relationship with your children, another option could be to discuss it openly with them. I might favour the decision to offer a greater proportion to my brother if I felt that I was part of the decision and my feelings were being considered.

This type of decision has huge potential to turn into arguments and strain relationships so think carefully before taking an uneven approach to your children.

GB, via email

'Split it equally - your childless son will leave the money to his brother's children anyway'

I suggest splitting the inheritance between the sons equally. They have each made a choice about what kind of life will make them happy. One's idea of happiness includes children and one's doesn't. It is for them to accept the costs and benefits of that decision, including the impact on how far their income or inheritance stretches.

I suspect the childless brother will leave his estate to his sibling's children eventually anyway, so they will benefit in due time - and, if they are delayed in benefiting from the money until their uncle's passing, perhaps their own children will benefit.

Bryony Prestidge, via email

'A third to me, a third to my brother and a third to his children' 

I was at the receiving end of a similar situation. I am a son with no children; my brother has two sons. I was left with one third, my brother one third, and each of my nephews one sixth of the estate. At the time I felt hard done by, but in retrospect the money left to my nephews has helped them with house purchase. 

David Everett, Epping

'Get your sons to decide - don't leave any surprises in your will' 

Both your children are adults. I would explain your dilemma to them both, explain your concerns and ask them to help you. You can then ask the two of them to discuss it (without you) and see if they can come to an agreement. 

In life, empowering people is always a better option than telling them what you have decided. Inheritance is very emotive and can cause huge frictions in families when a surprise is revealed in the will. 

James Dewar, via email

'Give some to the grandchildren and split the rest equally' 

This dilemma is one that is facing my parents, who have to divide their wealth between my sister and me. I have three children, while my sister has no intention of ever having children.

It was decided that a set sum would be used for the grandchildren. In this example, say £100,000. This would be divided equally between any and all grandchildren. It then leaves another sum of money, in your case £700,000, to be split equally between your two sons.

They would then each receive the same amount so would not feel unjustly done. This is important because even though your sons may get on now, money can cause the greatest of lovers, family and friends to fall out. 

NS, via email

'Leave £100,000 to each grandchild in trust or in a Junior Isa'

My solution would be to give an amount of money to each of the grandchildren in a trust or in Junior Isas - and split the remaining money between the two children.

Say £100,000 each for for the three grandchildren when they turn 18, and £250,000 each for the two children.

JH, via email

Register Log in commenting policy