Inheritance

[Anonymous]

Favoritism never bodes well for you or your survivors, they will feel you were dishonest and circumstances do change after your death. Do you really want to create ill memory of you and ill feelings between your children? Do you really "know" who needs what? Of course not.

I would say if you gave to one while you were alive and not the other (my friends MIL babysat for her daughter but not her son, so MIL left more to her son upon MIL's death, since what it cost the son in babysitting had to come out of the son's child's own college fund, as MIL reasoned); it is more than reasonable to leave a little more for the other child/ren.

I think some people would rather "tie up" the money than see the favored (floundering, underachieving, lazy, whatever) sibling get it. It is not unheard of.

[Anonymous]

Reading this thread makes me glad I'm an only - and to a widowed mother who'd never remarry.

Dear Sweet Jesus!

I have two, and even if one is a major fuck up, it's still 50-50.

[Anonymous]

My inlaws are in a tricky situation. Their family tradition is to leave the bulk of inheritance to the child that "needs it the most".

BIL has Aspergers, is functioning and has a job but tends to lose them. Will most likely struggle off and on. Is in his late 40s, probably will never marry (hasn't even dated). Lives in Texas, low cost of living.

We have 3 kids and much higher expenses than his bachelor lifestyle.

I wonder how my inlaws will split it. They're quite private about it. DH worries that if they leave the bulk to BIL, it will be squandered (BIL spends all extra $ on his interest, comic book art), and we will wind up caring for BIL anyway(which is fine, we are family). DH has offered to oversee a trust for his brother, but FIL is in denial about the impact of Aspergers.

So we have no idea! What do you think would be fair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My inlaws are in a tricky situation. Their family tradition is to leave the bulk of inheritance to the child that "needs it the most".

BIL has Aspergers, is functioning and has a job but tends to lose them. Will most likely struggle off and on. Is in his late 40s, probably will never marry (hasn't even dated). Lives in Texas, low cost of living.

We have 3 kids and much higher expenses than his bachelor lifestyle.

I wonder how my inlaws will split it. They're quite private about it. DH worries that if they leave the bulk to BIL, it will be squandered (BIL spends all extra $ on his interest, comic book art), and we will wind up caring for BIL anyway(which is fine, we are family). DH has offered to oversee a trust for his brother, but FIL is in denial about the impact of Aspergers.

So we have no idea! What do you think would be fair?

I think a 50/50 split would be fair. I do not understand parents who do not divide things up evenly.

[Anonymous]

In France every descendant is guaranteed under law an approximately equal share of the inheritance. Some may view this as State interference, but at least everybody knows where they stand and there are no dashed expectations and betrayals.

What a crock of shit. There may be very good reasons why a parent my choose to disinherit or give lesser amounts to one child than another. It isn't the "State's" business how someone divides their assets--one child may be disabled and require more money for long-term assistance, one child may have totally written off the parents during their lives, one child may have "borrowed" heavily from parents prior to death, one child may be an addict and the money will just go up their nose or into their veins. I don't yet know how I will divide my estate--or at least what is left of it after Uncle Sam gets ahold of my assets (I think big changes will come before I die regarding wealth distribution). I will have to see how life plays out.

[Anonymous]

First, children aren't entitled to any parental assets upon death and some of you greedy folks reinforce my beliefs on this. My mom left what little she had equally among her kids. While she meant well it was patently wrong. One child had nothing to do with during life. Two supported her financially and one sacrificed her health and family to take care of my mom after my dad (20 years) and while she was dieing. My sister should have gotten it all. Her sacrifices and love was greater. Writing a monthly check was a lot easier than daily care.

[Anonymous]

In France every descendant is guaranteed under law an approximately equal share of the inheritance. Some may view this as State interference, but at least everybody knows where they stand and there are no dashed expectations and betrayals.

I wrote the above. My mother and sisters were shut out of a significant inheritance because their father believed everything should go to his only male heir.
He also took his daughters out of school because "girls don't need education, they just need to marry well".
Several sisters lived below the poverty level because they had no diplomas and no money. Their parents, who lived in luxury, and their brother, did nothing to help them.

Well, I was happy to help my mother and her sisters overturn the will, after a lengthy court battle. My uncle still got the lion's share of my grandparents' estate because of donations (illegal but uncontested, would have taken another 10 years to sue) made to him during my grandfather's lifetime, but at least the balance was righted somewhat.

It is because of loonies like my grandparents that such inheritance laws are in place.
Of course there are a lot of exceptions: I know that in France you can will a greater part of your assets to a handicapped child to provide for him. Donations made while you are alive can also count towards the final calculations of who gets what. It can get quite complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In France every descendant is guaranteed under law an approximately equal share of the inheritance. Some may view this as State interference, but at least everybody knows where they stand and there are no dashed expectations and betrayals.

What a crock of shit. There may be very good reasons why a parent my choose to disinherit or give lesser amounts to one child than another. It isn't the "State's" business how someone divides their assets--one child may be disabled and require more money for long-term assistance, one child may have totally written off the parents during their lives, one child may have "borrowed" heavily from parents prior to death, one child may be an addict and the money will just go up their nose or into their veins. I don't yet know how I will divide my estate--or at least what is left of it after Uncle Sam gets ahold of my assets (I think big changes will come before I die regarding wealth distribution). I will have to see how life plays out.

Actually, the state gets involved all the time here in the U.S. You cannot, e.g., disinherit your spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In France every descendant is guaranteed under law an approximately equal share of the inheritance. Some may view this as State interference, but at least everybody knows where they stand and there are no dashed expectations and betrayals.

What a crock of shit. There may be very good reasons why a parent my choose to disinherit or give lesser amounts to one child than another. It isn't the "State's" business how someone divides their assets--one child may be disabled and require more money for long-term assistance, one child may have totally written off the parents during their lives, one child may have "borrowed" heavily from parents prior to death, one child may be an addict and the money will just go up their nose or into their veins. I don't yet know how I will divide my estate--or at least what is left of it after Uncle Sam gets ahold of my assets (I think big changes will come before I die regarding wealth distribution). I will have to see how life plays out.

Actually, the state gets involved all the time here in the U.S. You cannot, e.g., disinherit your spouse.

Similar laws exist in many countries with legal systems that arose out of European civil law tradition, e.g., many former Spanish and French colonies around the world. Part of the intent of these laws was to keep a guaranteed minimum within the bloodline. In other words, family money passed through generations of Sanchezes would not all end up with Sanchez #5's widow, Lady Rodriguez, rather than the Sanchez descendants. Another point of these laws is to decrease litigation and disputes over inheritance, and in that respect they work pretty well, in my experience. These laws allow significant flexibility, e.g. only a certain portion has to go to the "forced heirs" while a certain portion can be freely disposed, and they allow for people to disown their legal heirs, but it has to be done via a legal process. They also allow the testator to favor some forced heirs over others within a certain limit and guarantee a portion to the widow/er. They also permit some equalization of the inheritance if some heirs have received more than the others during the testators' life.

To Americans it may seem anathema, but I grew up in this cultural context and to me it makes good sense. Unequal distribution among equally-situated heirs is minimized, though equal treatment is not required, as are the money conflicts. Significant inheritances have been distributed in my extended family without conflict or resentments, as everybody knows more or less how things are going to go and everybody feels they have some legal protection.

The more you depart from equal distribution the more you end up breeding resentment, conflict, and division in the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In France every descendant is guaranteed under law an approximately equal share of the inheritance. Some may view this as State interference, but at least everybody knows where they stand and there are no dashed expectations and betrayals.

What a crock of shit. There may be very good reasons why a parent my choose to disinherit or give lesser amounts to one child than another. It isn't the "State's" business how someone divides their assets--one child may be disabled and require more money for long-term assistance, one child may have totally written off the parents during their lives, one child may have "borrowed" heavily from parents prior to death, one child may be an addict and the money will just go up their nose or into their veins. I don't yet know how I will divide my estate--or at least what is left of it after Uncle Sam gets ahold of my assets (I think big changes will come before I die regarding wealth distribution). I will have to see how life plays out.

Actually, the state gets involved all the time here in the U.S. You cannot, e.g., disinherit your spouse.

Similar laws exist in many countries with legal systems that arose out of European civil law tradition, e.g., many former Spanish and French colonies around the world. Part of the intent of these laws was to keep a guaranteed minimum within the bloodline. In other words, family money passed through generations of Sanchezes would not all end up with Sanchez #5's widow, Lady Rodriguez, rather than the Sanchez descendants. Another point of these laws is to decrease litigation and disputes over inheritance, and in that respect they work pretty well, in my experience. These laws allow significant flexibility, e.g. only a certain portion has to go to the "forced heirs" while a certain portion can be freely disposed, and they allow for people to disown their legal heirs, but it has to be done via a legal process. They also allow the testator to favor some forced heirs over others within a certain limit and guarantee a portion to the widow/er. They also permit some equalization of the inheritance if some heirs have received more than the others during the testators' life.

To Americans it may seem anathema, but I grew up in this cultural context and to me it makes good sense. Unequal distribution among equally-situated heirs is minimized, though equal treatment is not required, as are the money conflicts. Significant inheritances have been distributed in my extended family without conflict or resentments, as everybody knows more or less how things are going to go and everybody feels they have some legal protection.

The more you depart from equal distribution the more you end up breeding resentment, conflict, and division in the family.

This makes more rational sense than most know. Yes, you can tie up a siblings assets so they get nothing. I have known people who have successfully done so.

I know someone whose daughter claims to help the entire family. She does not. Not only that, she refuses to work and can barely take care of herself financially. Her parents have done everything for her (and nothing or far less for the other children in the family). The sibling that helps (the whole family, literally) does so quietly. The surviving parent is afraid of the favored daughter, sort of a sick relationship, but the mom would not think of not leaving the favored daughter everything. Even though the favored daughter is a complete slouch and has always lived off the parents in one manner or another. (The favored daughter is completely able bodied, she is simply a scheister - sp?) The favored daughter is accustomed to the surviving parent covering up for her. It is a sad situation, but I know firsthand that the responsible sibling will definitely sue the untoward sibling when this is over, so to speak.

Don't do that to your kids.

[Anonymous]

My dad is leaving 50/50 of his trust to me and my brother. And something like $250k to his second wife. I'm fine with that, its his money and she is nice and takes care of him. She's not a spendthrift at all and she works. My dad has helped my brother and I about the same through layoffs hard times. I have one child whereas my brother does not. My dad does put some money in an education trust. Not a crazy amount but every bit helps.

On the other hand my mom, first wife, is bitter because she thinks the second wife should not get anything and she should get something because she was married and put up with lots of crap. Technically she did put up with a lot of crap and my dad really screwed her in the divorce. But, I will be taking care of her probably with my dad's money so indirectly she will get it.