Family assets or what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:@OP, the parents of your DH owed him nothing. It is their money and they can do whatever they want. My parents gave me an education and donated $3M to the Americans Red Cross when my father passed away. They left $3M in a trust for my younger brother who is less fortunate than I am and I am perfectly fine with it. You and your DH have no rights for their assets and you should treat it as such. If they decide to give you and your DH something, be grateful. If not, deal with it.

My fathers family was similar to OP’s.
To the 4x divorced son they gave a ton of land and a lake house to and funded his kids’ colleges, while they were alive. No one else.

To the 40 year old son who lived on their second floor on his computer they gave 80% of their liquid assets. The rest was split five ways for the other five kids. He’s fine btw, was just freeloading. He took the money, moved to Portland Oregon, and does IT.

They never enjoyed their 25 years of retirement traveling or visiting or doing fun stuff. They were always bailing out the troublesome son or saving up for the do-nothing son.

Nothing you can do, nothing could have been done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About ten years ago my in-laws started buying rental properties with their home equity line. It would get self funded with renters, pay down the loan and they’d do it again. They’d also fix up and maintain the properties, file all the rental income taxes, keep things to code, etc. Single and jobless BIL, 40yo, lives near them and has no job so he liked to find the renters and call himself a property manager (with his dad and mom of course).

As my husband was having one of those Retirement Funds conversations with them it turns out they put BIL’s name only on each of the $1M properties! Yet MIL manages the finances of them but perhaps all three of them have anytime access to the rental income. BIl takes month long vacations whenever he wants.

So are these cash cow properties their retirement income or a gift to jobless BIL or inheritance early for him? Will we get an equivalent thing or is this just their socialist thing to do for little brother?

Moreover, what happens if the in laws need money for something medical or live in home support? Will we have to go through BIL or what is going on here? They also have company stock, a DB pension plan plus SS.

You, OP, will not get anything. Your husband, not you, would be the heir in this situation.

Oh please. her husband was cut out of a few $1 million each properties plus all the rental income they produce. Forever.

I am curious what OP's DH thinks about this?

Oh please indeed.

My DH's family's money is not my money. It is their money. If they pass away and leave money to DH, then it is his money.

That's how it works.

Maybe they can just give it all to your sibling. In fact, they could start buying her properties right now. So many that she can quit her job and just live off the renters!

See how that feels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is socialist about this whole situation?

Vast majority of inheritances are split equally among children and grandchildren. That is most adult kids base case and expectations. If you are deviating from that - while alive or in your final will - you should explain to all.

If you look at sister A who has a career in medicine and brother B who bounces around the music scene and want to give more to brother B, claiming he is more needing than sister A. Isn’t that socialism? Focusing resources based on need, on the welfare of the least advantages group? Make things more equal by proving more help and leaving more inheritance to your less successful child.

[Anonymous]

No, not a family asset once brother is the only person on the deed. I assume he is paying the rental income taxes and generating social security too. Good move considering he doesn’t have a job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is socialist about this whole situation?

Vast majority of inheritances are split equally among children and grandchildren. That is most adult kids base case and expectations. If you are deviating from that - while alive or in your final will - you should explain to all.

If you look at sister A who has a career in medicine and brother B who bounces around the music scene and want to give more to brother B, claiming he is more needing than sister A. Isn’t that socialism? Focusing resources based on need, on the welfare of the least advantages group? Make things more equal by proving more help and leaving more inheritance to your less successful child.

No, socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. OP thinks that she and her husband have some claim on the parents' assets; in fact, it is the parents' private property and they are free to spend it as they wish. In this case, OP is interpreting it through the lens of inheritance, which may not be the parents' thought process at all. Maybe they think that their son has earned it by working on the properties with them. Perhaps they value his contributions more than OP does. Maybe he does more work than OP knows. Maybe there is some tax or liability advantage in doing it the way they are doing. Maybe they are giving him these properties now to avoid complicated probate and intend to leave different assets to OP's husband. Or maybe they are doing it because they think the brother needs more help, and they are his parents and wish to help him. OP doesn't know, because her husband apparently didn't ask. And given that this is their business, the parents don't, in fact, need to explain or justify themselves to OP's husband, who is not involved in any way in running this business.

And adult kids who have any expectations at all regarding their parents' money are silly and deserve any disappointment they suffer. It's not your money until it's your money. Plus, people who count their inheritances in advance don't really care about it being "fair" except insofar as they define "fair." OP wouldn't bat an eye if the parents gave them more because they had more kids or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is socialist about this whole situation?

Vast majority of inheritances are split equally among children and grandchildren. That is most adult kids base case and expectations. If you are deviating from that - while alive or in your final will - you should explain to all.

If you look at sister A who has a career in medicine and brother B who bounces around the music scene and want to give more to brother B, claiming he is more needing than sister A. Isn’t that socialism? Focusing resources based on need, on the welfare of the least advantages group? Make things more equal by proving more help and leaving more inheritance to your less successful child.

It sounds from OP's post that the distribution is based on the BIL's work on the real estate business, not need.

[Anonymous]

Who wouldn’t want a bunch of high cash flo rental apartments to drop in their lap for free!?!?

[Anonymous]

OP needs to stop counting other people's money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is socialist about this whole situation?

Vast majority of inheritances are split equally among children and grandchildren. That is most adult kids base case and expectations. If you are deviating from that - while alive or in your final will - you should explain to all.

If you look at sister A who has a career in medicine and brother B who bounces around the music scene and want to give more to brother B, claiming he is more needing than sister A. Isn’t that socialism? Focusing resources based on need, on the welfare of the least advantages group? Make things more equal by proving more help and leaving more inheritance to your less successful child.

Think of it as evening out the genes that they gave to their children. They gave one the skill set that aligns with a higher paying job and the other a skill set that does not.

Also curious, how much college did the parents pay for the doctor sibling and how much for the musical sibling? Perhaps the original seed money from the original down payment balances out the amount spent on the sister's tuitions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Per above suggestion, I would NOT want to be on a rental property deed with a chronically jobless anyone. Just sayin’

Why not? Being on the deed just means that you own a share of the property. It doesn't mean that you are obligated to pay the mortgage or anything like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per above suggestion, I would NOT want to be on a rental property deed with a chronically jobless anyone. Just sayin’

Why not? Being on the deed just means that you own a share of the property. It doesn't mean that you are obligated to pay the mortgage or anything like that.

Hahahahhaha! Good luck man!

[Anonymous]

Sorry OP, this really sucks. I would think it would be enough to destroy the parental relationship. I’m not sure why your in laws would do something like this.

[Anonymous]

I hope their retirement and long term health insurance are in tip top shape if they are giving away rental properties like that.

Guess you’ll have to wait for the final will to be read to see what else they do. They could make it even then, or just split remaining estate, or give more to defunct BIL. Don’t count on anything rational OP....

[Anonymous]

It's their property and they can do whatever they want with it. How hard is this to understand?

[Anonymous]

Bottom line: you (and perhaps your husband) seem to have just learned that their biggest assets are already in BIL's name. So if it is worth it to your DH, he needs to have a conversation with his parents about their choices, plans, etc.