Inheritance when one child has kids, the other does not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The purpose of an inheritance is to build the family legacy so absolutely the money goes to the child with kids. The exception would be if the one who is childless has some sort of disability.

Why wouldn't the childless sibling then give the money to the nieces and nephews when they pass? That keeps it in the family without constantly dividing the legacy up into smaller and smaller pieces until nothing is left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming we are talking about a sizeable sum here - open and fully fund grandkids' college funds.

Then divide what remains evenly between children.

Nope…give each kid the same regardless
Of children.

Since most adults will pay for their kids’ college, this is just indirectly giving one adult child hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

Fund the grandkids to pass $$&s when alive but reduce what the adult child by same amount.

I would be so upset if my inheritance was lowered because I had more kids than my sibling. My sibling sees my parents every other year. Im here with them daily. My kids help them out a lot too- weeding, cleaning plus my kids spend a lot of time with them. I don’t think my kids deserve an inheritance but don’t think that grandparents get nothing out of grandkids. I think my kids are my parents purpose for living and their lives wouldn’t have been complete. Why should my inheritance be reduced?

You inheritance isn't lowered. You and your sibling get the same. How you spend the inheritance is your choice, on your kids' college tuition or not.

I’m someone whose parents didn’t support me. Why do you think all parents would pay for college? That’s dumb grandparent thinking. Money to my parents did not flow to me as their child. (I’m not bitter and don’t need it). Most boomers I know don’t give any money to their children.

I said pay for college or not, can you read?

I wouldn't know how "Boomers" always do things, because my parents and ILs aren't dead yet. But one set of my grandparents left nothing to me or any of my cousins. My other set left her paltry estate, about $10K total to my aunt. She did the caretaking so my mom wanted her to have whatever was left which was almost nothing. My husband's grandmother on one side left each grandkid $10K, that's it, and then the rest was split between two sisters. My husband's dad was an only child and he got everything, the grandkids got nothing. This is pretty common. Dividing between the siblings only is the easiest way to go about it, least likely to ruffle feathers. It doesn't matter what the recipient wants to do with the money. There's no guarantee grandkids will even go to college.

Do you think something should have been done differently here?

My mother's parents were very focused on being equal equal with their five kids. And those five kids had good relationships. Not perfect ones, but good enough to always pull through for each other and assume the best in difficult times.

My father's parents were less well off with his dad dying in his late 50s. His mom, who had always been a seamstress, sewed for as long as her eyesight allowed. Nearly all of their farm had been divided among my dad and his two siblings when his dad died with his grandma living on the remaining 25 acres and the homestead. My dad's sister got their mother to leave the house to her - even though she was the best off of the three kids - and she sold it and profited the proceeds. It was such a gut punch to her siblings.

I don't think anything should have been done differently in my case, I'm the PP. Your case is nothing at all like my case. But this is a case for dividing things up equally amongst siblings instead of unequally. Your aunt got everything and the other siblings got nothing. I don't think that's ideal for anyone. I don't know why grandkids are clamoring for a piece of the pie. Their time will come when their parents pass. Just like their parents had to wait for theirs, if there was anything left to divide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming we are talking about a sizeable sum here - open and fully fund grandkids' college funds.

Then divide what remains evenly between children.

Nope…give each kid the same regardless
Of children.

Since most adults will pay for their kids’ college, this is just indirectly giving one adult child hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

Fund the grandkids to pass $$&s when alive but reduce what the adult child by same amount.

I would be so upset if my inheritance was lowered because I had more kids than my sibling. My sibling sees my parents every other year. Im here with them daily. My kids help them out a lot too- weeding, cleaning plus my kids spend a lot of time with them. I don’t think my kids deserve an inheritance but don’t think that grandparents get nothing out of grandkids. I think my kids are my parents purpose for living and their lives wouldn’t have been complete. Why should my inheritance be reduced?

You inheritance isn't lowered. You and your sibling get the same. How you spend the inheritance is your choice, on your kids' college tuition or not.

I’m someone whose parents didn’t support me. Why do you think all parents would pay for college? That’s dumb grandparent thinking. Money to my parents did not flow to me as their child. (I’m not bitter and don’t need it). Most boomers I know don’t give any money to their children.

I said pay for college or not, can you read?

I wouldn't know how "Boomers" always do things, because my parents and ILs aren't dead yet. But one set of my grandparents left nothing to me or any of my cousins. My other set left her paltry estate, about $10K total to my aunt. She did the caretaking so my mom wanted her to have whatever was left which was almost nothing. My husband's grandmother on one side left each grandkid $10K, that's it, and then the rest was split between two sisters. My husband's dad was an only child and he got everything, the grandkids got nothing. This is pretty common. Dividing between the siblings only is the easiest way to go about it, least likely to ruffle feathers. It doesn't matter what the recipient wants to do with the money. There's no guarantee grandkids will even go to college.

Do you think something should have been done differently here?

My mother's parents were very focused on being equal equal with their five kids. And those five kids had good relationships. Not perfect ones, but good enough to always pull through for each other and assume the best in difficult times.

My father's parents were less well off with his dad dying in his late 50s. His mom, who had always been a seamstress, sewed for as long as her eyesight allowed. Nearly all of their farm had been divided among my dad and his two siblings when his dad died with his grandma living on the remaining 25 acres and the homestead. My dad's sister got their mother to leave the house to her - even though she was the best off of the three kids - and she sold it and profited the proceeds. It was such a gut punch to her siblings.

I don't think anything should have been done differently in my case, I'm the PP. Your case is nothing at all like my case. But this is a case for dividing things up equally amongst siblings instead of unequally. Your aunt got everything and the other siblings got nothing. I don't think that's ideal for anyone. I don't know why grandkids are clamoring for a piece of the pie. Their time will come when their parents pass. Just like their parents had to wait for theirs, if there was anything left to divide.

I couldn't tell if you were dismayed or not.

Yes, the aunt, who had been an only child for seven years and resented when my aunt and dad were born, didn't care about the deleterious effect this move would have. She simply believed that she was the oldest, she deserved it, and that they would have to suck it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless one has triple digit millions or more to bequeath, then all things being equal, the money should be divided equally amongst the children, not the grandchildren: it's the parents' choice to breed and thus their responsibility to support their own brood. Reproducing in and of itself doesn't automatically make one or one's offspring more worthy of resources: does anyone honestly think that someone like Oliver Sacks contributed less to the world than the Duggars?

That said, if I'd spent (wasted) a disproportionate amount of money on one kid for preventable and unnecessary reasons (e.g. more than one round of drug rehab because kid started using again within a week of getting out of one stint; bail; rent because of eviction owing to failure to work, etc.), I'd rebalance through my will to award the kid(s) who were hard-working and responsible all along.

Also, if I had one kid whose net worth was somewhere in the neighborhood of what, say, Serena Williams or Oprah Winfrey has and the other were, say, a middle school teacher and what I had to leave in the way of material resources would provide my middle-class child with financial security that would not affect the material welfare of my other child in any meaningful way,
I might want to bequeath a disproportionate amount to the former, but not if doing so would negatively affect their relationship with each other.

No, but the person with kids is more likely to need the money, put it to good use, and carry things forward.

And just to add, it doesn't make you more valuable to the world but having kids certainly does make an impact to your family and the grandparents.

So a childless person who leaves money to, say, the Audubon Society does less with it than a breeder who blows it on ATVs, drunkfests (vacations; graduations for high school seniors finishing with D averages), rock concerts because family? Impact, btw, can be, to quote the Rocky Horror Picture Show, "good, bad or mediocre." The lack of critical thinking ability and imagination in this thread and on this site more generally is just appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Skip a generation and send it all to the grandkids. You do want your lineage to continue, correct? What is the child free child going to do with the money? Donate it to scam charities? C’mon.

This.

[Anonymous]

The idea of inheritance is to continue family line. Childless child had their whole life to contribute to their career and should have enough money. Rearing children is the cost, women often have to take a break in their careers or have no careers at all. So I'd look at what my kids have done so far. I certainly wouldn't leave money to a childless child who then leaves it to charity, I can do that myself! I'd leave money to the child with kids, some to grandkids directly and if a daughter, to her, to make sure she has money in her old age.

[Anonymous]

And please don't divide your actual house among children in equal shares. My DH's family is facing a situation where his grandfather divided a property among his 3 kids. DH's brother bought out the aunt's share, so his mom and brother co-own 2/3. However, uncle is childless and if he dies first, his wealth goes to his wife, who intends to leave all of hers to her nephews, who are strangers to DH's family. Uncle refuses to give his share back to his FOO. There is a lot of drama going on right now because of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea of inheritance is to continue family line. Childless child had their whole life to contribute to their career and should have enough money. Rearing children is the cost, women often have to take a break in their careers or have no careers at all. So I'd look at what my kids have done so far. I certainly wouldn't leave money to a childless child who then leaves it to charity, I can do that myself! I'd leave money to the child with kids, some to grandkids directly and if a daughter, to her, to make sure she has money in her old age.

Wow. These posts that essentially shut out childless people are shocking to me. Our family is our family and we treat and view our kids the same, whether they had children or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Skip a generation and send it all to the grandkids. You do want your lineage to continue, correct? What is the child free child going to do with the money? Donate it to scam charities? C’mon.

This.

So every other generation gets an inheritance? That doesn't seem right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Wow. These posts that essentially shut out childless people are shocking to me. Our family is our family and we treat and view our kids the same, whether they had children or not.

So let's see. Suppose you had two kids, a son and a daughter. Son spent their whole life building their career, so by the age of say 50, they're a high paid professional with their own house, significant retirement savings etc. that a long career provides. Daughter on the other hand had 3 kids over the span of 20 years, was a SAHM or had to take a break in her career, lowering her earning potential and retirement savings considerably. And perhaps surprise, surprise, at age 50 her DH decided to go on a second round. Which one of them has more material wealth in your opinion by age 50 and which one actually needs help? There is no such thing as distributing your wealth 50/50 in unequal circumstances and considering this "treating kids the same".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea of inheritance is to continue family line. Childless child had their whole life to contribute to their career and should have enough money. Rearing children is the cost, women often have to take a break in their careers or have no careers at all. So I'd look at what my kids have done so far. I certainly wouldn't leave money to a childless child who then leaves it to charity, I can do that myself! I'd leave money to the child with kids, some to grandkids directly and if a daughter, to her, to make sure she has money in her old age.

Wow. These posts that essentially shut out childless people are shocking to me. Our family is our family and we treat and view our kids the same, whether they had children or not.

So let's see. Suppose you had two kids, a son and a daughter. Son spent their whole life building their career, so by the age of say 50, they're a high paid professional with their own house, significant retirement savings etc. that a long career provides. Daughter on the other hand had 3 kids over the span of 20 years, was a SAHM or had to take a break in her career, lowering her earning potential and retirement savings considerably. And perhaps surprise, surprise, at age 50 her DH decided to go on a second round. Which one of them has more material wealth in your opinion by age 50 and which one actually needs help? There is no such thing as distributing your wealth 50/50 in unequal circumstances and considering this "treating kids the same".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming we are talking about a sizeable sum here - open and fully fund grandkids' college funds.

Then divide what remains evenly between children.

Nope…give each kid the same regardless
Of children.

Since most adults will pay for their kids’ college, this is just indirectly giving one adult child hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

Fund the grandkids to pass $$&s when alive but reduce what the adult child by same amount.

I would be so upset if my inheritance was lowered because I had more kids than my sibling. My sibling sees my parents every other year. Im here with them daily. My kids help them out a lot too- weeding, cleaning plus my kids spend a lot of time with them. I don’t think my kids deserve an inheritance but don’t think that grandparents get nothing out of grandkids. I think my kids are my parents purpose for living and their lives wouldn’t have been complete. Why should my inheritance be reduced?

It is 100% okay to give different amounts!

For example:

My sibling is always "too busy" to help with anything with the parents. We both are a plane ride away. Sibling has not seen parents in 9 years. Only ever saw them prior to that because I paid for their airfare (and neice) to visit us when parents were with us. During major medical issues, sibling refused to come and help (had no real reason not to come, they had no work at that time-ssmmer vacation, and I was willing to pay all expenses, it was just them giving their time)

Meanwhile, I help parents with everything (even from a distance), visit a few times per year, helped get them into a CCRC (Paid entry fee), am their POA and executor of the wills, etc.

When parents die, I will get repaid for the CCRC entry fee, essentially leaving little to nothing for sibling to inherit. I don't need it, but will take it because sibling is ungrateful and unhelpful. Parents don't really care if they give sibling much.

In reality, I'm the sibling who has helped parents for the last 25+ years with time and energy. So it's not far fetched to understand that parents want to leave more to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I plan to do a third to each of my 2 children and a third to split amongst the grandkids (in trust until they are 25).

Why in trust until 25?! I didn’t have enough money for law school at 22 so I wasn’t able to go. Still a big regret. I did receive large inheritances but they couldn’t help me at 22.

Inheritance from parents or grandparents?

Ideally one should put it in a trust that is accessible for education prior to 22. But for all other means, not accessible until 25 (or whatever age desired).

For us, education is key, so our grandkids will get full access to it for that purpose at any time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea of inheritance is to continue family line. Childless child had their whole life to contribute to their career and should have enough money. Rearing children is the cost, women often have to take a break in their careers or have no careers at all. So I'd look at what my kids have done so far. I certainly wouldn't leave money to a childless child who then leaves it to charity, I can do that myself! I'd leave money to the child with kids, some to grandkids directly and if a daughter, to her, to make sure she has money in her old age.

I’m curious what you’d have my parents do. I’m an only child with no children. Who should my parents leave their money to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I’m curious what you’d have my parents do. I’m an only child with no children. Who should my parents leave their money to?

Use common sense? Your parents can leave their money to someone in their families on either father's or mother's side. If you're married, you can leave your money to your spouse's family. In the end, life goes on. Another option is to establish a mechanism to provide scholarships to the youth in the community. For example, I know of a high school where a former educator has a scholarship named after him for high school athletes. Another man who ran a soccer club all his life has a scholarship for academically exceptional club athletes. The amounts are small ($1000), but mean a lot to high school kids and they absolutely talk about this. I know of other small scholarships established by people in the community who are not millionaires that are for academic achievement. After all, there are only a few individuals who get libraries named after them. For these two men mentioned, their families established these scholarships after their deaths as a tribute for their lifelong passions, so there are kids and grandkids. Do your parents have passions? Did they spend their lifetime doing something that took a lot of effort and time (a career or a hobby)? I'm sure if you think a bit, you'll have your answer.