Large early inheritance to only 1 of 3 siblings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind in op’s situation the sibling who got the money now lives a much grander lifestyle than the less favored siblings. That’s weird.

I don’t see “much grander” anywhere in the OP, where are you getting that?

“Large house” in “most desirable neighborhood” of a large city that op says is beyond the reach of the other two siblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind in op’s situation the sibling who got the money now lives a much grander lifestyle than the less favored siblings. That’s weird.

I don’t see “much grander” anywhere in the OP, where are you getting that?

It's right in the middle of the OP. "...a living standard above that of the other two siblings"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I have seen so many fights over inheritance. My mother and her siblings were locked in a 25 year court battle over their father's will because their brother stole his sisters' inheritance. My BIL is making jealous noises over my MIL's plan for her inheritance, because he's not happy his two brothers will get more, for various reasons that MIL has spelled out clearly and in advance.

And here I am, with one child with special needs who might have difficulty getting or keeping jobs, and one highly-functional child. I am tempted to divide my estate equally between them, just because no matter how I explain it, the child who has less might always feel slighted. Also because I don't know what the future will bring to either one. But it will also depend on how my child with SN grows up and how functional he gets.

The best I can do is work on our family bond, and make sure they appreciate one another, so that if ever one needs help after I'm gone, the other will be OK stepping in.

I would give evenly to both of your children. I have a SN sibling and it wasn't an easy childhood. Luckily sibling is doing very well now.

My mom's cousin's kid (my 2nd cousin?) is SN and he inherited everything. The issue was that to get into the group home that he wanted to be in (a house with a house mom and 5 adults), he had to spend down his inheritance. So maybe in that case equal inheritance might have been better so that his siblings could help him financially later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind in op’s situation the sibling who got the money now lives a much grander lifestyle than the less favored siblings. That’s weird.

I don’t see “much grander” anywhere in the OP, where are you getting that?

“Large house” in “most desirable neighborhood” of a large city that op says is beyond the reach of the other two siblings.

But not “much” beyond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind in op’s situation the sibling who got the money now lives a much grander lifestyle than the less favored siblings. That’s weird.

I don’t see “much grander” anywhere in the OP, where are you getting that?

It's right in the middle of the OP. "...a living standard above that of the other two siblings"

“Above” is not the same as “much grander.” If it were far and away above it would say that, I assume.

[Anonymous]

Parents who treat their children completely unequally reap what they sow in family disfunction.

You are entitled to do whatever you want with your money. There is obviously a cost in relationship quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve got three kids and it certainly seems like a bad idea to me. though they clearly have the right to do what they want that’s not the same as a right to no reaction or an entirely neutral response.

Why is it a bad idea?

I don’t know what to tell you if your imagination can’t stretch to understanding that barring circumstances not mentioned in the op (special needs, difference in standard of living) it may cause surprise and hurt.

OP said there was a difference in standard of living. Also everyone is ignoring the church element. Maybe the parents viewed the work for the church as a real sacrifice to the family’s finances and appreciated that?

This is important. If one of my kids had a low paid career that I also thought was especially important moral work, like say, a public defender, I probably would subsidize their life.

And I don’t think that actually has anything to do with “early inheritance” despite how it’s framed in OP. It’s just a gift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s their money and there’s no obligation to give everyone the same.

Of course there’s no obligation and they’re free to do what they please with their money. But that doesn’t make them immune from the natural feelings of children who are treated disparately. I’ve seen first hand the fall out of my grandparents estate when siblings were treated differently. The baby of the family was coddled their whole life, didn’t marry as well as the others, and was given more money for them and their kids (while grandparents were alive). So the disparate treatment flowed down to grandkids even.

The funny thing is my parents did well enough on their own with no family money, but not well enough to be immune from the usual financial stress of trying to put kids through college, home repairs, etc. So I know it chafed my dad to see his little brother blow money on nicer vacations than we could take while he had to keep working hard to support himself. Anyone looking to treat their kids differently is kidding themselves if they think their kids will have zero feelings about one kid being favored over the others.

I have 3 and DH and I plan to split everything evenly the same as our parents planned for us. The only reason I could see treating kids differently is if one has profound special needs and the parents are funding care for them once the parents are gone (which helps the siblings not have to provide family care). Hopefully there would be some understanding in that case. But if one kid marries someone who makes less or chooses a lower paying job, then that is their life choice to make. They will get 1/3 of our estate someday and that’s it.

[Anonymous]

If it’s early inheritance - I guess it’s fine. You can ask for yours early too or wait.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like parents are super rich, and some of the kids are too. Stop fighting over free money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like parents are super rich, and some of the kids are too. Stop fighting over free money.

+1 For affluent kids to squabble over their parents' millions is plain unseemly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s their money and there’s no obligation to give everyone the same.

While that is true, their decision has consequences. And one of those consequences may be some resentment from the two siblings. Which could lead to larger problems down the road. Good way to break up a family. That man's decision to work at a church also has consequences but the parents decided it doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s their money and there’s no obligation to give everyone the same.

While that is true, their decision has consequences. And one of those consequences may be some resentment from the two siblings. Which could lead to larger problems down the road. Good way to break up a family. That man's decision to work at a church also has consequences but the parents decided it doesn't.

At what point are the kids responsible for their own reactions? I find it pretty pathetic to blame the parents that the kids are so angry they’re rich and inheriting a ton, but not rich enough or inheriting even more.

I also think it’s perfectly reasonable for parents to reward a career path they find to be more morally upstanding. Why shouldn’t they?

[Anonymous]

Is the private school affiliated with the church?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s obviously their money to do what they want with but it was a bad idea and natural to find it strange and awkward.

+1 you can express your hurt but it is their money full stop. Not a good idea because it can build conflict between siblings and who wants that for their kids. But how your parents perceive need and how you do is clearly different.