Inheritance when one child has kids, the other does not

[Anonymous]

I don't have children and as of now my brother does not either (although that could change for him, he's in his late 30s). But if my brother did have children down the road, I would have zero problem if he and I got the same amount and a separate pot was set aside for his children. I would be uncomfortable with money for his kids having to come out of his "half." The kids are separate people!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give equal amounts to both of your adult children. Then also have a separate amount of money to be distributed equally among the grandkids.

So, maybe split your inheritance 40-40-20. Each of your kids getting 40% of your inheritance, and the grandkids divvying up the 20%.

In my family we give a portion to each adult child and then a portion split between adult grandchildren. Adult grandchildren are out of the house and are responsible for themselves financially, so they aren't getting as much financial benefit from the parents. Minor children share in the portion given to their parents.

That’s not as savy as you think. The adult children have already had more investment into them, because they are older. If the parents die, the minor children will need to become adults and also share their parents’ money with the adult children. So the adult children will end up getting more, when they’re adults and can fend for themselves.

A variation of this became a sticking point in my mother's large (five siblings) family with 30 grandchildren. Grandparents gave everyone the same amount for BD, holidays, HS graduation (farm family so not everyone going off to college so not treated as a milestone). Then they gave money for marriage. And there became some talk over time when the oldest brother began handling grandparents' finances about if this should be dispersed by age not marriage. There were a number of unmarried grandchildren - one had kids, a number were not married due to age (the age span of the grandchildren is about 25 years - the oldest now is 70), and three were gay in various stages of being in the closet.

It was never changed and I know some of the siblings were not happy, but it reflected the times in many ways.

[Anonymous]

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?

[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?

If you knew you had an inheritance coming, why not just take out the loans knowing you'll be able to pay them? Most of us paid them even without an inheritance.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Appreciate your last point, including the sensitivity to the relationship.

Your opening point is more challenging. Perhaps a trust might be worth consideration. I wake up with a lot of problems every day, but am grateful, truly so, that addiction is not one of them.

[Anonymous]

My parents have a set amount for each grandchild and then the remaining assets are split between me and my siblings in equal shares.
For example, each grandchild would get $10k and each child would end up with $100k.
My family has 3 kids while my sister only has one so they would get $20K less than my family.

My grandparents did it the same way.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.