Unequal inheritance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My parents did a version of this - one sibling of 5 getting their vacation home. Absolutely my parents choice, their money but what this did was create a rift among the kids. This is probably not the legacy they intended (half so pissed not talking and if I mistakenly mention speaking to one side I'm taking sides....) This ended up especially ugly as this sibling didn't help with day to day care in last years but because they expressed intent of resettling at vacation home location which most of us knew wasn't going to happen and didn't-and the house was on market and sold as soon as out of escrow (almost 1million): rest of estate (<$1mil) split 5 ways.

I want anything I leave to add to my kids to add to their life not create strife between them.

There’s a reason that the one son got the vacation home that you’re not sharing. It didn’t just happen.

[Anonymous]

I am one of four. We have more money than our siblings and the most kids. We’re also the only ones with grandkids. Our parents were fairly well off, and and essentially divided things among evenly among every living family member, basically meaning our family got seven shares, for example, while my brother and his one kid only got two because there are only two of them and seven of us. And they have far less money than us to begin with.

And guess what? Nobody cares. It’s the parents’ money to give, they thought this made sense, and it was their call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My father figured out a way to support his youngest daughter, my sister -- in a fair way.

She will receive 1/4 of his estate, probably about 1M$, so an equal division. A monthly allowance will be determined and rec'd by her from her inheritance. My brother, the eldest, will be the executor of the estate. If she needs more $ for whatever reason, the 3 other siblings of which I am one must all agree for her to get the extra $.

This is being done as she is a train wreck with no money sense. None of us want to support her in her old age, so we feel this is a good decision.

Seems odd that parents would leave the child who is the WORST at managing money and their life the most.

My sister is aware of the plan and is just glad she will not have to manage the money.

Good luck with this. BTDT. Train wrecks happen because they don't know how to navigate life, they fall off the rails and usually can't be righted. At least not without massive heaving lifting.

My father did the same for my brother who is also a trainwreck and I had to manage the money. In the long run it was a nightmare for me. Every time he got in a fix or had some crazy idea, he came screaming around that he wanted "his" money. Under the will/trusts conditions I couldn't do it. Eventually he had access to it by the time he was middle aged. He blew through it all within months and had nothing (and I mean NOTHING) to show for it.

Now he's in his 60's and I am still supporting him to a small extent, though I swore I wouldn't do it. The small amount I provide each month allows him to supplement his social security and keep renting his own place because the only other option in his town is a homeless shelter. His county does not permit destitute seniors with housing vouchers - they only give them to people with families. He gets food stamps, thankfully, otherwise he'd starve. He has Medicaid/Medicare due to his poverty level. If he needs long-term care at some point, he's already eligible for it since he has no assets.

All I'm saying is that despite your dad's best intentions, it doesn't always work out the way they plan it. And at some point you may have to decide to support her, or know that she will be living on the streets or in her car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My father figured out a way to support his youngest daughter, my sister -- in a fair way.

She will receive 1/4 of his estate, probably about 1M$, so an equal division. A monthly allowance will be determined and rec'd by her from her inheritance. My brother, the eldest, will be the executor of the estate. If she needs more $ for whatever reason, the 3 other siblings of which I am one must all agree for her to get the extra $.

This is being done as she is a train wreck with no money sense. None of us want to support her in her old age, so we feel this is a good decision.

Seems odd that parents would leave the child who is the WORST at managing money and their life the most.

My sister is aware of the plan and is just glad she will not have to manage the money.

Good luck with this. BTDT. Train wrecks happen because they don't know how to navigate life, they fall off the rails and usually can't be righted. At least not without massive heaving lifting.

My father did the same for my brother who is also a trainwreck and I had to manage the money. In the long run it was a nightmare for me. Every time he got in a fix or had some crazy idea, he came screaming around that he wanted "his" money. Under the will/trusts conditions I couldn't do it. Eventually he had access to it by the time he was middle aged. He blew through it all within months and had nothing (and I mean NOTHING) to show for it.

Now he's in his 60's and I am still supporting him to a small extent, though I swore I wouldn't do it. The small amount I provide each month allows him to supplement his social security and keep renting his own place because the only other option in his town is a homeless shelter. His county does not permit destitute seniors with housing vouchers - they only give them to people with families. He gets food stamps, thankfully, otherwise he'd starve. He has Medicaid/Medicare due to his poverty level. If he needs long-term care at some point, he's already eligible for it since he has no assets.

All I'm saying is that despite your dad's best intentions, it doesn't always work out the way they plan it. And at some point you may have to decide to support her, or know that she will be living on the streets or in her car.

Why are seemingly normal people like this? This is my dad you just described.

[Anonymous]

My ILs have already send they plan to leave SIL's family more as a "reward" for being a SAHM.

Which is kind of ironic as my MIL was estranged from her half sister for YEARS due to perceived favoritism by their father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would it bother you if your parents left your sibling more than you because sibling chose not to work?

Need more info as to why sibling isn't working for money

He doesn’t like working. He saved up some money 200k and quit the job he hated at 35. He is almost 50 now. He is divorced and lives with our parents over a decade. They pay most of his bills. He has been lazy since he was a kid. My mom wants to make it fair by giving him the house he lives in with them -worth over a million, then split the cash between the two of us. So she is rewarding his laziness.

Yes, that would make me very upset.

+1. Yeah, it's their money and all, but this bugs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. Unless they hire stuff out (like lawn care, minor updates) he will soon take those tasks over day to day. As they age, they will need more and more from him. He will likely eventually be the shopper, the driver and various other small tasks. That means you don’t have to take on those things (or have them have to decide if they need to seek their home) plus removes the worry of them being alone when one dies. Worth it.

Doubtful that he'll take anything on. He's used to being paid for, cooked for and cleaned up after. Dude probably doesn't lift a finger to help. Odds are the only thing he does is buy beer with his allowance money and has friends over to play video games with him in the basement.

We have no idea, it is all conjecture. He won’t have a choice eventually. It would be rare to have someone at 90 who is still managing all the tasks of a maintaining a large home. Either he will take more on, or they will downsize or need some level of assisted living. One of the will eventually die, which changes the dynamic in a huge way. If the parents are the type to dragged out of their home with a fight, then having him there may mean they never have to face that situation.

Having dealt with this personally, having someone onsite and knowing the final parent is not alone is worth a ton. If he steps up it will also save his parents money by being able to stay in their own home.

Op has no choice in this situation, so they may as well focus on the positives. Some of the potential benefit isn’t as obvious right now.

His choice will be to let the house dilapidate and parents be neglected. You’ve obviously never met someone like this. Of course, I’m projecting. I’m the poster who’s dad ran up his 90 year old mother’s credit. Your assuming OP’s brother operates under the same moral code as you.

He can't even take care of himself, he isn't going to maintain the house and take care of his parents. Op's parents need to sell that house and downsize into something more manageable. Get a 2 bedroom condo or a small house in an affordable retirement community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There literally isn’t a person who wouldn’t be hurt by this?

My in-laws give my SIL and BIL infinitely more money than they have ever given us (and ever will give us - we've seen the will). SIL doesn't work because she's lazy. BIL works but doesn't earn would he could if he acted like an adult. They have four kids. My husband isn't hurt by this. It doesn't mean his parents love him less. It means his sister is a mess and his parents enable her. He actually feels better that they don't give him anything. Of course, it will be up to us to take care of them when they're older, but whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My ILs have already send they plan to leave SIL's family more as a "reward" for being a SAHM.

Which is kind of ironic as my MIL was estranged from her half sister for YEARS due to perceived favoritism by their father.

Good for your in-laws. They’re doing what they want with THEIR money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My ILs have already send they plan to leave SIL's family more as a "reward" for being a SAHM.

Which is kind of ironic as my MIL was estranged from her half sister for YEARS due to perceived favoritism by their father.

Good for your in-laws. They’re doing what they want with THEIR money.

It appears a lot of people on this thread don’t understand what that means. Weird.

[Anonymous]

So when you were younger and your sibling would get more, bigger gifts than you for birthdays, Christmas, etc year after year - this wouldn't bother/hurt you?
Could you do this to your own kids ?

Not sure why this scenario is different just cause we're adults. Sorry, its rude of the parents at any age
(not to mention , they are rewarding the bum, and punishing the hard worker - so many wrongs).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. Unless they hire stuff out (like lawn care, minor updates) he will soon take those tasks over day to day. As they age, they will need more and more from him. He will likely eventually be the shopper, the driver and various other small tasks. That means you don’t have to take on those things (or have them have to decide if they need to seek their home) plus removes the worry of them being alone when one dies. Worth it.

Doubtful that he'll take anything on. He's used to being paid for, cooked for and cleaned up after. Dude probably doesn't lift a finger to help. Odds are the only thing he does is buy beer with his allowance money and has friends over to play video games with him in the basement.

We have no idea, it is all conjecture. He won’t have a choice eventually. It would be rare to have someone at 90 who is still managing all the tasks of a maintaining a large home. Either he will take more on, or they will downsize or need some level of assisted living. One of the will eventually die, which changes the dynamic in a huge way. If the parents are the type to dragged out of their home with a fight, then having him there may mean they never have to face that situation.

Having dealt with this personally, having someone onsite and knowing the final parent is not alone is worth a ton. If he steps up it will also save his parents money by being able to stay in their own home.

Op has no choice in this situation, so they may as well focus on the positives. Some of the potential benefit isn’t as obvious right now.

His choice will be to let the house dilapidate and parents be neglected. You’ve obviously never met someone like this. Of course, I’m projecting. I’m the poster who’s dad ran up his 90 year old mother’s credit. Your assuming OP’s brother operates under the same moral code as you.

He can't even take care of himself, he isn't going to maintain the house and take care of his parents. Op's parents need to sell that house and downsize into something more manageable. Get a 2 bedroom condo or a small house in an affordable retirement community.

But then OP will get stuck taking care of the enabled brother. I agree with your plan, but the enabled brother has no incentive to do for himself, because mom and dad will clearly always be helping him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when you were younger and your sibling would get more, bigger gifts than you for birthdays, Christmas, etc year after year - this wouldn't bother/hurt you?
Could you do this to your own kids ?

Not sure why this scenario is different just cause we're adults. Sorry, its rude of the parents at any age
(not to mention , they are rewarding the bum, and punishing the hard worker - so many wrongs).

Perfect analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who has a sibling knows that things are never "equal." My parents paid different amounts for my sibling's wedding, college education, even their first bicycle. You can't always get everything you want, but you get what you need. In this case OP's sibling, jobless and struggling, has more needs than OP.

[Anonymous]

Yes it would bother me. I know it's their money and they can do whatever they like with it but it would annoy me to no end that just because I work and plan and save I get penalised for that when my sibling has chosen to not work, spend and be reckless.

I guess it also depends on the relationships, my parents have shown a subtle favouritism toward my sibling so I would deep down take that as further favouritism.

If the inheritance was unequal and my sibling didn't change that to make it equal then yes it would negatively impact our relationship. It may not be right but it's how I would honestly feel.