Inheritance Question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. I have a disabled child, but I won't automatically give him more. If he were entirely unable to work or fend for himself, sure. I have a cousin with a trust fund in that situation. But for people who can manage, I think life should play out. Maybe my more functional child will have a devastating life event. No one know what will happen. I don't know who will have kids, and who will have greater needs.

My family tore each other apart due to my grandfather's legally problematic will. It took 25 years to get it overturned in court, and now various people aren't talking to each other.

So equal shares is my go-to.

OP here. Both siblings are completely able to fend for themselves. It's certainly possible either could get laid off. There will be no more children from either sibling.

OP, why are you thinking about money that belongs to your parents? What they leave and how much of it they leave to each person is a bonus and not an expectation. Live your life and don't expect these things.

OP here. The parents brought it up and asked for thoughts ... that's why. Also the will is currently 50/50 and they are proposing revising it. No one expects anything. It's a situation being presented for thoughts.

Then just tell them that's their decision to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here... would you consider financial situations? Sibling A has made no effort to save and has made many life decisions that have put them in a lesser financial situation (though far from destitute). Sibling B makes a decent income (but not extravagant) but lives very frugally and has saved since the first job out of college when they made a very meager salary.

Sibling A is also child free and Sibling B is not.

Curious the thoughts on this?

If Sibling A has no children and Sibling B does have children, it sounds like Sibling B is patting themselves on the back for being a parent, and thus needing to have different financial plans than Sibling A when the choice to have children is not a better or more correct choice than remaining childfree, but merely a personal preference.

My guess is that OP is Sibling B and is angling for more of the inheritance for OP's children and is using Sibling A's financial situation as justification for why the grandparents should give more money to B for the grandkids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. I have a disabled child, but I won't automatically give him more. If he were entirely unable to work or fend for himself, sure. I have a cousin with a trust fund in that situation. But for people who can manage, I think life should play out. Maybe my more functional child will have a devastating life event. No one know what will happen. I don't know who will have kids, and who will have greater needs.

My family tore each other apart due to my grandfather's legally problematic will. It took 25 years to get it overturned in court, and now various people aren't talking to each other.

So equal shares is my go-to.

OP here. Both siblings are completely able to fend for themselves. It's certainly possible either could get laid off. There will be no more children from either sibling.

OP, why are you thinking about money that belongs to your parents? What they leave and how much of it they leave to each person is a bonus and not an expectation. Live your life and don't expect these things.

OP here. The parents brought it up and asked for thoughts ... that's why. Also the will is currently 50/50 and they are proposing revising it. No one expects anything. It's a situation being presented for thoughts.

What do you mean the parents brought it up? The parents asked you to advise them on whether they should split the money with you 50-50 or not? That’s one of the weirdest things I’ve ever heard.

OP here. They reached out to say they were considering revising the will from 50/50 to splitting it to give more to Sibling A due to their lesser financial situation and what were the thoughts on that? Yes, I agree it's kind of weird ... I think the weirdest part is they are going out of their way to revise the will when nothing's happened to prompt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here... would you consider financial situations? Sibling A has made no effort to save and has made many life decisions that have put them in a lesser financial situation (though far from destitute). Sibling B makes a decent income (but not extravagant) but lives very frugally and has saved since the first job out of college when they made a very meager salary.

Sibling A is also child free and Sibling B is not.

I would not differentiate for life choices or marriage outcomes. I suppose there could be some extreme scenario where the parents are to blame for the one sibling’s situation, but I can’t come up with a good hypothetical.
Curious the thoughts on this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here... would you consider financial situations? Sibling A has made no effort to save and has made many life decisions that have put them in a lesser financial situation (though far from destitute). Sibling B makes a decent income (but not extravagant) but lives very frugally and has saved since the first job out of college when they made a very meager salary.

Sibling A is also child free and Sibling B is not.

Curious the thoughts on this?

If Sibling A has no children and Sibling B does have children, it sounds like Sibling B is patting themselves on the back for being a parent, and thus needing to have different financial plans than Sibling A when the choice to have children is not a better or more correct choice than remaining childfree, but merely a personal preference.

My guess is that OP is Sibling B and is angling for more of the inheritance for OP's children and is using Sibling A's financial situation as justification for why the grandparents should give more money to B for the grandkids.

OP here. Not advocating for more money at all. Advocating for 50/50.

[Anonymous]

There are many circumstances where I would *consider* it. If it drove a wedge between my children, that is due to their own emotional immaturity, so that would not be a reason for me not to do it.

I find it absolutely pathetic and contemptible when people blame the dead for their own lack of coping skills.

[Anonymous]

How about if one 'adult child' is nearly sixty, able bodied and has an able bodied wife but has made a career out of being a parasite off of the parents while the other two siblings have earned their own way and lived within their means? This is our situation. The Golden Child has been milking my parents for money for twenty years already with no end in sight. He thinks the estate should be divided evenly three ways because the gifts he has received already are irrelevant. He appears to think that he is simply more deserving and entitled to generous 'gifts' than anyone else is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are many circumstances where I would *consider* it. If it drove a wedge between my children, that is due to their own emotional immaturity, so that would not be a reason for me not to do it.

I find it absolutely pathetic and contemptible when people blame the dead for their own lack of coping skills.

What situations would you consider it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many circumstances where I would *consider* it. If it drove a wedge between my children, that is due to their own emotional immaturity, so that would not be a reason for me not to do it.

I find it absolutely pathetic and contemptible when people blame the dead for their own lack of coping skills.

What situations would you consider it?

I’m sure I couldn’t list them all but things I’ve heard of and can understand? Health of the child, health of a grandchild requiring intensive care from a parent that interferes with their career, choosing to work for an institution that is important to our family values (eg my cousin who worked for a religious body that paid slave wages but my aunt and uncle were very devout in the faith), taking on a major caregiving role for family…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many circumstances where I would *consider* it. If it drove a wedge between my children, that is due to their own emotional immaturity, so that would not be a reason for me not to do it.

I find it absolutely pathetic and contemptible when people blame the dead for their own lack of coping skills.

What situations would you consider it?

I’m sure I couldn’t list them all but things I’ve heard of and can understand? Health of the child, health of a grandchild requiring intensive care from a parent that interferes with their career, choosing to work for an institution that is important to our family values (eg my cousin who worked for a religious body that paid slave wages but my aunt and uncle were very devout in the faith), taking on a major caregiving role for family…

OP here. Thanks for sharing. None of those issues are at play in this situation. I guess any of that could change at a moment's notice though, making 50/50 make sense unless they constantly update their will at every life situation change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many circumstances where I would *consider* it. If it drove a wedge between my children, that is due to their own emotional immaturity, so that would not be a reason for me not to do it.

I find it absolutely pathetic and contemptible when people blame the dead for their own lack of coping skills.

What situations would you consider it?

I’m sure I couldn’t list them all but things I’ve heard of and can understand? Health of the child, health of a grandchild requiring intensive care from a parent that interferes with their career, choosing to work for an institution that is important to our family values (eg my cousin who worked for a religious body that paid slave wages but my aunt and uncle were very devout in the faith), taking on a major caregiving role for family…

OP here. Thanks for sharing. None of those issues are at play in this situation. I guess any of that could change at a moment's notice though, making 50/50 make sense unless they constantly update their will at every life situation change.

I don’t think you’re adding anything to your life by trying to decide if your parents are right to do this, but you could take this opportunity to learn how to control your reactions instead of indulging yourself in this exercise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure. I would leave my child, who has some health issues, a lot more than the one who doesn't.

Also, I would consider their life circumstances outside of health.

A great way to divide them as it is quite likely the one with health issues will need the emotional support of sibling after you are gone.

I would always divide 50/50.

[Anonymous]

There is no easy answer! Our plan is to divide equally because our adult children are all doing fine and there is no special need situation. But if we had an adult child who was a good for nothing bum he/she would not get an equal share and I’d let him know about that right now. Maybe that would motivate him to straighten out but regardless he won’t be surprised. If I had an adult child with special needs I’d set up some kind of trust to provide for those needs because a lump sum inheritance could get ripped off by someone.

[Anonymous]

The only reason not to do 50/50 is to give the grandkids some of the $. And they should just get a set amount (i.e., $10K each) and then the rest is split 50/50 between the kids.

[Anonymous]

I would stick w/ 50/50.

Parents could choose to allocate something for the grandchildren if they wish - I could see putting money towards an education or something. Do that separately and leave everything else 50/50. Otherwise there are weird judgment calls being made that just open the door for hurt feelings or subjective criteria etc...