question about wills

[Anonymous]

My 77-80 year old in laws just updated their wills for the first time in 35 years and made end of life arrangements. They told their son (DH) that he would be POA for financial decisions and that their daughter would be Medical POA. Sounds about right, bc she lives there and is more involved, but does not make the most financially sound decisions.

So DH and the kids met them for dinner this past weekend midway between our homes, and upon leaving the restaurant my MIL hands DH the envelope with the wills and made an off hand mention that he and his sister are joint decision makers on everything as per the lawyer's recs. DH was caught off guard and said OK, and left. We reviewed the wills at home and they are co-executors as well as co-POA for any financial decisions, SIL has sole medical POA.

While the inlaws have very little estate, basically just the house, and I am guessing even that the house equity/money from sale would be spent on end of life care, I feel this sort of designation promotes more arguments and strife between the siblings. Is this something that is done now, for "fairness"? Did they get poor legal advice? Is my thinking out of line with what is commonly recommended? In the end what's done is done, but I am just curious for my own knowledge. TIA.

[Anonymous]

Lawyer here. I don’t think there’s just one way to handle things. People know their beneficiaries best so should make decisions with that in mind. It makes sense for financial decisions to be made jointly unless there’s a particular reason not to do so.

[Anonymous]

If they squabble and fight, it'll happen no matter what the legal document says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they squabble and fight, it'll happen no matter what the legal document says.

Pretty much this. We were raised where my paternal aunt basically grabbed everything for herself and her children, leaving nothing really for her two siblings and offspring after their mother died. On my mom's side, everything was divided equally. Perhaps a little pathology there, but the lesson my siblings and I took away is that you have to work it out amongst yourselves so everyone benefits. There was only one instance over five years there was any real disagreement and it was fairly muted in the moment and forgotten now.

DH and sibling have this division. I strongly urged him to be transparent on the finances even if he has the POA. It's potentially loaded as the sibling sometimes doesn't "get" things, especially when they think they will not be the primary beneficiary (the equal-equal approach could work here) and will throw a bit of a fit (I've been on the receiving end more than once). Even with that in mind, I told DH he still needed to do it as it was the right thing and will serve him and the situation over time. So far it seems to be working.

[Anonymous]

It is far better for them to be co-executors. They can share the work involved and they can both have full access to all financial and legal documents. It’s also good to have checks and balances, with two sets of eyes on everything.

Don’t do what one of my relatives did. She took her parents to have a low cost will made and emerged from the office as sole executor. When her parents died, she hoarded information and refused to answer any of her siblings’ questions about the estate.

Eventually they had to take her to court. It turned out she was selling personal property and pocketing the profits, keeping no records or receipts. She also stole thousands of dollars of cash that her elderly parents had kept around the house. She was heavily fined by the court and had to repay her siblings for all she had stolen. She also could have been criminally charged, but her siblings were too nice (in my opinion) and decided not to press charges.

So, definitely, better to have co-executors from the beginning to keep everyone on the same page.

[Anonymous]

In some states, probating a will is much more simplified if all of the heirs to an estate are also executors. Could be a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is far better for them to be co-executors. They can share the work involved and they can both have full access to all financial and legal documents. It’s also good to have checks and balances, with two sets of eyes on everything.

Don’t do what one of my relatives did. She took her parents to have a low cost will made and emerged from the office as sole executor. When her parents died, she hoarded information and refused to answer any of her siblings’ questions about the estate.

Eventually they had to take her to court. It turned out she was selling personal property and pocketing the profits, keeping no records or receipts. She also stole thousands of dollars of cash that her elderly parents had kept around the house. She was heavily fined by the court and had to repay her siblings for all she had stolen. She also could have been criminally charged, but her siblings were too nice (in my opinion) and decided not to press charges.

So, definitely, better to have co-executors from the beginning to keep everyone on the same page.

Just out of curiousity (and I am one of the full disclosure PPs), why do you think your relative did this? Was her net worth lower than her siblings, did she have a lot of debt, etc? On another tack, did she take disproportionate care for the parents yet it was not compensated/recognized?

I never ceased to be surprised when folks do this, including what seems like a mistaken belief that they will not be caught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is far better for them to be co-executors. They can share the work involved and they can both have full access to all financial and legal documents. It’s also good to have checks and balances, with two sets of eyes on everything.

Don’t do what one of my relatives did. She took her parents to have a low cost will made and emerged from the office as sole executor. When her parents died, she hoarded information and refused to answer any of her siblings’ questions about the estate.

Eventually they had to take her to court. It turned out she was selling personal property and pocketing the profits, keeping no records or receipts. She also stole thousands of dollars of cash that her elderly parents had kept around the house. She was heavily fined by the court and had to repay her siblings for all she had stolen. She also could have been criminally charged, but her siblings were too nice (in my opinion) and decided not to press charges.

So, definitely, better to have co-executors from the beginning to keep everyone on the same page.

Just out of curiousity (and I am one of the full disclosure PPs), why do you think your relative did this? Was her net worth lower than her siblings, did she have a lot of debt, etc? On another tack, did she take disproportionate care for the parents yet it was not compensated/recognized?

I never ceased to be surprised when folks do this, including what seems like a mistaken belief that they will not be caught.

You know, I’m really not sure why she did it. Two of the siblings probably have far lower net worth than she does. I don’t really know about debt or what her expenses were like and she did not do much to take care of her parents.

It was surprising to the whole extended family when we found out about it. I still don’t get it. Possibly the idea of acquiring some extra money in a way that you think can never be tracked down is just too tempting for some people. I think she had always resented one of the siblings, so maybe there was an element of thinking she’d pulled one over on that sibling that she got some satisfaction from. As family, we have discussed and speculated as to why she would have done this.

I think she was really surprised when the other siblings got a lawyer and started asking questions that she didn’t have good answers for. She assumed they wouldn’t question her at all and thought she would get away with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My 77-80 year old in laws just updated their wills for the first time in 35 years and made end of life arrangements. They told their son (DH) that he would be POA for financial decisions and that their daughter would be Medical POA. Sounds about right, bc she lives there and is more involved, but does not make the most financially sound decisions.

So DH and the kids met them for dinner this past weekend midway between our homes, and upon leaving the restaurant my MIL hands DH the envelope with the wills and made an off hand mention that he and his sister are joint decision makers on everything as per the lawyer's recs. DH was caught off guard and said OK, and left. We reviewed the wills at home and they are co-executors as well as co-POA for any financial decisions, SIL has sole medical POA.

While the inlaws have very little estate, basically just the house, and I am guessing even that the house equity/money from sale would be spent on end of life care, I feel this sort of designation promotes more arguments and strife between the siblings. Is this something that is done now, for "fairness"? Did they get poor legal advice? Is my thinking out of line with what is commonly recommended? In the end what's done is done, but I am just curious for my own knowledge. TIA.

OP, what is your concern about this setup? Are you worried that decision making will be more complicated with two people involved?

Why do you think that there will be more arguments and strife when they have equal say in decisions? Couldn’t it be worse if one person makes decisions and the other person’s opinion is not considered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is far better for them to be co-executors. They can share the work involved and they can both have full access to all financial and legal documents. It’s also good to have checks and balances, with two sets of eyes on everything.

Don’t do what one of my relatives did. She took her parents to have a low cost will made and emerged from the office as sole executor. When her parents died, she hoarded information and refused to answer any of her siblings’ questions about the estate.

Eventually they had to take her to court. It turned out she was selling personal property and pocketing the profits, keeping no records or receipts. She also stole thousands of dollars of cash that her elderly parents had kept around the house. She was heavily fined by the court and had to repay her siblings for all she had stolen. She also could have been criminally charged, but her siblings were too nice (in my opinion) and decided not to press charges.

So, definitely, better to have co-executors from the beginning to keep everyone on the same page.

Just out of curiousity (and I am one of the full disclosure PPs), why do you think your relative did this? Was her net worth lower than her siblings, did she have a lot of debt, etc? On another tack, did she take disproportionate care for the parents yet it was not compensated/recognized?

I never ceased to be surprised when folks do this, including what seems like a mistaken belief that they will not be caught.

You know, I’m really not sure why she did it. Two of the siblings probably have far lower net worth than she does. I don’t really know about debt or what her expenses were like and she did not do much to take care of her parents.

It was surprising to the whole extended family when we found out about it. I still don’t get it. Possibly the idea of acquiring some extra money in a way that you think can never be tracked down is just too tempting for some people. I think she had always resented one of the siblings, so maybe there was an element of thinking she’d pulled one over on that sibling that she got some satisfaction from. As family, we have discussed and speculated as to why she would have done this.

I think she was really surprised when the other siblings got a lawyer and started asking questions that she didn’t have good answers for. She assumed they wouldn’t question her at all and thought she would get away with it.

Thanks for responding. Frankly, I'm not necessarily surprised by your reply. Just like a number of folks believe they can commit a perfect murder (looking at you, Bryan Kohberger), there are many others who believe they can embezzle, misappropriate, etc and not get caught. And someone willing to go to such lengths to pad their pocket also doesn't think that family will ask hard questions.

Sometimes folks don't even wait till the bodies are cold. Have a close friend with a sibling in law and the latter is hell bent on getting all the money out of the estate and leaving the real estate for the older brother to handle, even if the cash assets v real estate are not equal or even equitable (property in low COL areas). My friend tells me that any time the family is together the sibling in law is always trying to take the dad aside and lobby for why the division should be this way. Recently the friend overheard the sibling say, "I don't like this stuff and I shouldn't have to deal with it." According to my friend, her husband takes care of everything, especially finances and health insurance, as his sibling says it's "boring."

This kind of stuff can really unhinge some.

[Anonymous]

Some times, some places, coexecutors need to show up together in person at banks to get anything at all done. This is not what my parents wanted. And so they chose one of us.

[Anonymous]

If it is written correctly, it just provides more flexibility. Either person can act independently. It doesn't necessarily mean both people have to agree on everything and show up together. If your spouse and his sibling have any kind of functional relationship they will agree to split up duties and both act independently and it will save everyone time and energy.

My spouse and his sibling were co-executors/PoA and I am as well with my sibling. Worked fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 77-80 year old in laws just updated their wills for the first time in 35 years and made end of life arrangements. They told their son (DH) that he would be POA for financial decisions and that their daughter would be Medical POA. Sounds about right, bc she lives there and is more involved, but does not make the most financially sound decisions.

So DH and the kids met them for dinner this past weekend midway between our homes, and upon leaving the restaurant my MIL hands DH the envelope with the wills and made an off hand mention that he and his sister are joint decision makers on everything as per the lawyer's recs. DH was caught off guard and said OK, and left. We reviewed the wills at home and they are co-executors as well as co-POA for any financial decisions, SIL has sole medical POA.

While the inlaws have very little estate, basically just the house, and I am guessing even that the house equity/money from sale would be spent on end of life care, I feel this sort of designation promotes more arguments and strife between the siblings. Is this something that is done now, for "fairness"? Did they get poor legal advice? Is my thinking out of line with what is commonly recommended? In the end what's done is done, but I am just curious for my own knowledge. TIA.

OP, what is your concern about this setup? Are you worried that decision making will be more complicated with two people involved?

Why do you think that there will be more arguments and strife when they have equal say in decisions? Couldn’t it be worse if one person makes decisions and the other person’s opinion is not considered?

I guess my concerns include that we live over two hours apart and this could be inconvenient, as well as that my SIL does not demonstrate good fiscal responsibility in her life (which her mother recognizes). We've never been involved in an estate closure, so it is all new to us and don't know what is standard. In my own parents' estate I am the sole executor, although that may be because my brother lives out of state (although only a half hour from me).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 77-80 year old in laws just updated their wills for the first time in 35 years and made end of life arrangements. They told their son (DH) that he would be POA for financial decisions and that their daughter would be Medical POA. Sounds about right, bc she lives there and is more involved, but does not make the most financially sound decisions.

So DH and the kids met them for dinner this past weekend midway between our homes, and upon leaving the restaurant my MIL hands DH the envelope with the wills and made an off hand mention that he and his sister are joint decision makers on everything as per the lawyer's recs. DH was caught off guard and said OK, and left. We reviewed the wills at home and they are co-executors as well as co-POA for any financial decisions, SIL has sole medical POA.

While the inlaws have very little estate, basically just the house, and I am guessing even that the house equity/money from sale would be spent on end of life care, I feel this sort of designation promotes more arguments and strife between the siblings. Is this something that is done now, for "fairness"? Did they get poor legal advice? Is my thinking out of line with what is commonly recommended? In the end what's done is done, but I am just curious for my own knowledge. TIA.

OP, what is your concern about this setup? Are you worried that decision making will be more complicated with two people involved?

Why do you think that there will be more arguments and strife when they have equal say in decisions? Couldn’t it be worse if one person makes decisions and the other person’s opinion is not considered?

I guess my concerns include that we live over two hours apart and this could be inconvenient, as well as that my SIL does not demonstrate good fiscal responsibility in her life (which her mother recognizes). We've never been involved in an estate closure, so it is all new to us and don't know what is standard. In my own parents' estate I am the sole executor, although that may be because my brother lives out of state (although only a half hour from me).

So how do you think her impaired fiscal responsibility is going to affect your DH and her parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 77-80 year old in laws just updated their wills for the first time in 35 years and made end of life arrangements. They told their son (DH) that he would be POA for financial decisions and that their daughter would be Medical POA. Sounds about right, bc she lives there and is more involved, but does not make the most financially sound decisions.

So DH and the kids met them for dinner this past weekend midway between our homes, and upon leaving the restaurant my MIL hands DH the envelope with the wills and made an off hand mention that he and his sister are joint decision makers on everything as per the lawyer's recs. DH was caught off guard and said OK, and left. We reviewed the wills at home and they are co-executors as well as co-POA for any financial decisions, SIL has sole medical POA.

While the inlaws have very little estate, basically just the house, and I am guessing even that the house equity/money from sale would be spent on end of life care, I feel this sort of designation promotes more arguments and strife between the siblings. Is this something that is done now, for "fairness"? Did they get poor legal advice? Is my thinking out of line with what is commonly recommended? In the end what's done is done, but I am just curious for my own knowledge. TIA.

OP, what is your concern about this setup? Are you worried that decision making will be more complicated with two people involved?

Why do you think that there will be more arguments and strife when they have equal say in decisions? Couldn’t it be worse if one person makes decisions and the other person’s opinion is not considered?

I guess my concerns include that we live over two hours apart and this could be inconvenient, as well as that my SIL does not demonstrate good fiscal responsibility in her life (which her mother recognizes). We've never been involved in an estate closure, so it is all new to us and don't know what is standard. In my own parents' estate I am the sole executor, although that may be because my brother lives out of state (although only a half hour from me).

This actually sounds like a very good situation. Your DH and his sister will have lots of transparency and they will be able to discuss and make decisions together.

The last thing you want is a situation where one person has all the information and doesn’t share with the other.