My grandparents gave their house to one child, got it appraised and gave the same amount as the appraisal to each other child. They were lucky they had that much cash available, but I think it was very helpful they did this. They also transferred ownership well before they passed away so when they died, there was nothing to disagree about.

I personally don't get why more money isn't left to the grandchildren. My parents will be in their mid to late 60s when their parents die, AKA already retired. Whereas my cousins are struggling in their early 20s-early 30s with wanting to marry, but having little money; wanting to have a baby, but don't have paid maternity, nor enough money to take 8 weeks unpaid; wanting to move out of a studio apartment, but not money for a downpayment; and still paying off 50k + in student loans. I'm so glad that our parents will each get 500k+, but man it's already hard to see them taking their month long cruises when we don't have paid annual leave even. (DH and I are doing fine and don't need the money, but cousins could).

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I do. I am the younger son and rather broke the mould by not joining the clergy. But I always knew I would have to make my own way in life, so have never harboured any bitterness about it. And this way I know that the family lands will stay together, as a great estate. I have seen so many other families lose the tradition, split up their lands, and end up subsumed into hoi polloi. Sad.

Wow, this is so interesting!! I would love to read a "Ask Me Anything" with some of your background, if you ever feel like doing one. Being expected to go into the clergy and not going, a family estate staying together, etc all sounds really fascinating to read about. Thanks for giving a bit more info.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my family we follow primogeniture. The oldest male child gets the lot, apart from some cash and keepsakes.

It works for our family.

Wow! Do you have a family heritage from a culture where this is the norm?

Now that would piss me off, but as you said - it works for your family, and if everyone comes up knowing that's the deal, then I imagine it is fine.

Yes, I do. I am the younger son and rather broke the mould by not joining the clergy. But I always knew I would have to make my own way in life, so have never harboured any bitterness about it. And this way I know that the family lands will stay together, as a great estate. I have seen so many other families lose the tradition, split up their lands, and end up subsumed into hoi polloi. Sad.

Anonymous wrote:In my family we follow primogeniture. The oldest male child gets the lot, apart from some cash and keepsakes.

It works for our family.

Wow! Do you have a family heritage from a culture where this is the norm?

Now that would piss me off, but as you said - it works for your family, and if everyone comes up knowing that's the deal, then I imagine it is fine.

Anonymous wrote:Yes I would. I even admit that it would create some bad blood between us. But this obsession that all must be equal, that I don't get. My mom and her sister are engaged in a particularly vicious fight bc my grandpa had a big plot of land that he split and 47/53 bc of the way the historical property line was drawn or something. It seems really trivial to me.

You're contradicting yourself all over the place. On the one hand you say you would respect it, but then you also say it would cause bad blood. The issue is that we assume parents love children equally, and will treat them essentially equally. If there is a reason to deviate from treating them equally, there should be a reason why (e.g., fairness due to circumstances). So, for instance, if parents have two children, one inherited a large estate from a deceased spouse and is set for life while the other has a couple of special needs children and is practically broke from paying for services, the parents might see it as fair to leave the bulk of their estate to the child with the greatest need, especially since it's through no fault of their own. If there's no compelling issue of fairness, though, when parents make an unequal distribution, it smacks of favoritism and that's hurtful. Your grandfather made the decision not just to divide the property unequally, but also to choose one of his daughters to whom to give the larger share. Without an understanding of why that makes sense to everyone, that hurts.

In my family we follow primogeniture. The oldest male child gets the lot, apart from some cash and keepsakes.

It works for our family.

I think the 3% is just a proxy for a lifetime of anger and resentment. I like to think I'd be able to rise above all that when my time comes but who knows.

Anonymous wrote:

No it's all done and dusted and each has a title to their subplot and are free to sell as they wish. The big plot has been totally divided and the old man knew what he was doing. But the bad blood this has created is otherwordly. Agree co-owning a property with a sibling is a nightmare.

Yeah, in that case - I agree fighting over the 3% is ridiculous. It sounds like it was a technicality because of it being physical property and existing property lines, at that! I can't really imagine getting worked up over it.

DH and his brother have had to split the property of both of their parents' estates, and while there were a few comments here and there ("He's going to just take that TV and freezer and not count it in the estate? Ooooookay."), at the end of the day we were just glad to have it settled and both people got what they needed out of it.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes I would. I even admit that it would create some bad blood between us. But this obsession that all must be equal, that I don't get. My mom and her sister are engaged in a particularly vicious fight bc my grandpa had a big plot of land that he split and 47/53 bc of the way the historical property line was drawn or something. It seems really trivial to me.


It might not be trivial if one person wants to sell it and the other doesn't. It doesn't sound like he actually split the property, but rather he kept the property intact and split the ownership. Owning a home or property together after a parents' death can be really complicated because often siblings have different ideas of what they'd like to do with the property - and them being in a "partnership" they didn't want makes it difficult to settle the matter.

No it's all done and dusted and each has a title to their subplot and are free to sell as they wish. The big plot has been totally divided and the old man knew what he was doing. But the bad blood this has created is otherwordly. Agree co-owning a property with a sibling is a nightmare.

Anonymous wrote:Yes I would. I even admit that it would create some bad blood between us. But this obsession that all must be equal, that I don't get. My mom and her sister are engaged in a particularly vicious fight bc my grandpa had a big plot of land that he split and 47/53 bc of the way the historical property line was drawn or something. It seems really trivial to me.

It might not be trivial if one person wants to sell it and the other doesn't. It doesn't sound like he actually split the property, but rather he kept the property intact and split the ownership. Owning a home or property together after a parents' death can be really complicated because often siblings have different ideas of what they'd like to do with the property - and them being in a "partnership" they didn't want makes it difficult to settle the matter.

I think it is the default because it isn't something most people want to create more problems between your grown children after they're gone.

Now, if parents want to split it differently, they are certainly entitled to. But I think the responsible thing to do is to tell them ahead of time how you're splitting it rather than leaving it as a surprise to find in their will. I generally think people need to have more discussion and documentation of their end-of-life wishes, but especially if you are structuring it in a way that isn't the standard. It causes so many hurt feelings between the living if it comes as a surprise during a time of grief.

More than half of Americans die without a will. So in those cases, things get split equally between heirs just by default. And then I'm sure in a large amount of wills, stuff is also split equally. It being split differently is relatively rare, and therefore a surprise to people - it's not a reach to think that it will cause strife and fighting between siblings, especially if they haven't had good relationships leading up to that.

Yes I would. I even admit that it would create some bad blood between us. But this obsession that all must be equal, that I don't get. My mom and her sister are engaged in a particularly vicious fight bc my grandpa had a big plot of land that he split and 47/53 bc of the way the historical property line was drawn or something. It seems really trivial to me.

You wouldn't be the least bit curious as to why your parents felt you deserved less than your siblings?

Why is there this expectation that parents will divide things equally amongst their children? I can honestly say if my parents left everything to my siblings I would respect it and move on.