Team OP. This happened to my husband - the parents decided that one sister "needed" the family home more because the other siblings seemed to be squared away. Well, after the parents died, DH got a divorce and basically had to start over and his other sister had a kid born with serious disabilities, and there was the other sister happily living mortgage free in their childhood home. It hasn't destroyed the family, but it definitely has colored the family dynamics for over 2 decades now. It wasn't even THAT much money, certainly not $1 million, but it created an unnecessary wedge between siblings.

Parents, don't do this!

Anonymous wrote:
do your step-siblings now about this arrangement? a bff has been paying her mother's property taxes for the last five years. I've been insisting that she document all this because she should not assume that her siblings will be all chill when the estate is divided if there is no proof of her support.

I am a PP who has a SIL who will tell her parents, on family occasions and often within earshot, that they should leave the money to her and the real estate to her brother as he is "just better at that stuff." DH, who is very generous, thinks this is all his parents' decision, but, if asked, thinks the estate should be diivded equally.

half-siblings. and probably not, but they don't call him more than once a year, and I haven't talked to the one sister in over a decade so I don't particularly care if they know the particulars or are chill. the beauty of being on the title with survivorship means that i lose out of some tax advantages of inheriting real property but the house is solely mine if my parents die.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Disagree. OP is the child of a 1%er, or rather a 0.5%er. Presumably OP will receive a large inheritance from her parents, her quibble is that she thinks she deserves a larger one. Excuse me if I can't sympathize with her. I'm the poster above who has no issues with my less financially secure SIL's family inheriting more than my family, and we're far poorer than the OP is.

If you read the whole thread, it becomes clear that the house is the parents only asset, they got lucky with house appreciation and thats it. They are not 1%ers, and in reality that house is probably going to be lost to end of life care for one or both of them, unless they get so lucky as to die quickly and suddenly. But in the abstract, the OP has to deal with the emotional impact of basically being told that she is not as worthwhile as her sister, and her parents are telling her that NOW, upfront. It's a hard thing to cope with.

A friend who had success in life was told by his dad that he wouldn't be in the will because he didn't need anything. And then his dad turned around and tried to make him executor of the will! The reality is neither my friend or his siblings OR the grandkids *need* anything, but verbally trying to dole it out in varying amounts just opens old rivalries and hurts and does absolutely no good whatsoever. Make it even. If one child takes on the bulk of eldercare, that should be dealt with in the present time and not be left to estate settlement.

personally, i've been supporting my parents for 20 years; the house is titled to revert to me when they die so it wouldn't be part of the estate. I have no idea if my dads older daughters are in his will anymore, and didn't feel like making that conditional, I just took care of it with titling. certainly if there is any stuff they might want they can take it, but they absolutely don't get to inherit the house i have been paying the mortgage on for 20 years.

do your step-siblings now about this arrangement? a bff has been paying her mother's property taxes for the last five years. I've been insisting that she document all this because she should not assume that her siblings will be all chill when the estate is divided if there is no proof of her support.

I am a PP who has a SIL who will tell her parents, on family occasions and often within earshot, that they should leave the money to her and the real estate to her brother as he is "just better at that stuff." DH, who is very generous, thinks this is all his parents' decision, but, if asked, thinks the estate should be diivded equally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fair doesn't always mean equal.

This is such a shitty response. We all know that when its 2 dresses vs. 4 pairs of shoes or whatever. Not when a million dollars is concerned.

Why? My parents don't have a $1 million vacation home, so this is all hypothetical to me, but why should a parent leave equal amounts to kids who have different standards of living? My SIL is poorer than DH and I, and I have no objection if my ILs leave her/her kids more money than they leave my kids.

similar situation. what would you think if, for some reason after your parents dies, you and DH lose all your money? Would you still want the same arrangement?

Anonymous wrote:
Disagree. OP is the child of a 1%er, or rather a 0.5%er. Presumably OP will receive a large inheritance from her parents, her quibble is that she thinks she deserves a larger one. Excuse me if I can't sympathize with her. I'm the poster above who has no issues with my less financially secure SIL's family inheriting more than my family, and we're far poorer than the OP is.

If you read the whole thread, it becomes clear that the house is the parents only asset, they got lucky with house appreciation and thats it. They are not 1%ers, and in reality that house is probably going to be lost to end of life care for one or both of them, unless they get so lucky as to die quickly and suddenly. But in the abstract, the OP has to deal with the emotional impact of basically being told that she is not as worthwhile as her sister, and her parents are telling her that NOW, upfront. It's a hard thing to cope with.

A friend who had success in life was told by his dad that he wouldn't be in the will because he didn't need anything. And then his dad turned around and tried to make him executor of the will! The reality is neither my friend or his siblings OR the grandkids *need* anything, but verbally trying to dole it out in varying amounts just opens old rivalries and hurts and does absolutely no good whatsoever. Make it even. If one child takes on the bulk of eldercare, that should be dealt with in the present time and not be left to estate settlement.

personally, i've been supporting my parents for 20 years; the house is titled to revert to me when they die so it wouldn't be part of the estate. I have no idea if my dads older daughters are in his will anymore, and didn't feel like making that conditional, I just took care of it with titling. certainly if there is any stuff they might want they can take it, but they absolutely don't get to inherit the house i have been paying the mortgage on for 20 years.

^^ should say, "my brother would get $1M of cash and stock, etc."

Anonymous wrote:My parents have a home that is worth about $1M in a vacation destination, no mortgage. They mentioned leaving it my older sister because she doesn't have a house and we already have one. My house still has a mortgage and won't be paid off for another 20 years. I think it's unfair that they would just give it to her outright and leave nothing for me. I would like it left to both of us. How can this be done with the least amount of trouble for our families? Like after we die, could it be divided equally to our children? She has 2 and I have 2. Also, I don't wouldn't want anyone to sell it and if it could be kept in the family as a vacation home or rental I think it would be nice for generations to enjoy. If it were left to my sister, I suspect she would just sell the home and use the money to purchase elsewhere. How could it be done, where it's kept in the family and everyone owns it equally? Anyone have good/bad stories about their experiences?

Ok here is what worked for my brother and me:

Aside: We live in California, so we did this for tax reasons (inheriting the CA Prop 13 tax cap, which transfers from parent-child but not sibling-sibling so we didn't want to inherit the house jointly and then have me buy him out) but this can work for you for your purposes:


In their will, my dad left the house to me and the full market value of the house (valued back to the date of death) to my brother. So let's say the house, on date of death was worth $1M. My brother would get $1 of cash and stock etc. However; if my dad's monetary estate did not have $1M in it, then I would take a mortgage on the house, and pay him off. That way I inherited the full title.

And the valuation of the house actually happens after death; you just get the valuation to back it up to date of death given the market at that time. Or you can do "date of death or six months after."

It totally worked. And if I needed more $ than the mortage provided, I could use my own $ or take out a loan. Because I needed full title.

HTH!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fair doesn't always mean equal.

This is such a shitty response. We all know that when its 2 dresses vs. 4 pairs of shoes or whatever. Not when a million dollars is concerned.

Why? My parents don't have a $1 million vacation home, so this is all hypothetical to me, but why should a parent leave equal amounts to kids who have different standards of living? My SIL is poorer than DH and I, and I have no objection if my ILs leave her/her kids more money than they leave my kids.

So what happens if your DH loses his job, and because of his age can’t get an even remotely similar one? Or one of you gets cancer that eats through your savings. Or a costly divorce? Or he gets hit by a bus tomorrow? Things change. If your life stays as graced as it apparently has been, then you can use your share to help pay for college for your nieces/nephews or whatever.

I suppose one could dig up any excuse for not engaging in philanthropy or being compassionate. My family is luckier than my SIL's family now (inshallah), and we have good savings in the case of a catastrophic event. I would never begrudge having my IL's having peace of mind knowing that they've helped her to the best of their abilities.

I’m not suggesting one not be philanthropic or compassionate, but in OP’s situation, arguably she is in a less financially secure position than her sister, so why should said sister get an extra million just because she hasn’t bought a house with all her money? Good for you that you are so rich than no catastrophe could impact your family’s comfort, but that usually isn’t the case in most families. Usually different standards of living just result from different life choices, and except in the case of special needs or something similar, why should a hard working sibling who saves be penalized for it?

It's one thing to spend more on one child because that child needs more resources in order to be on equal ground with her siblings, like a kid with special learning needs who would drown if she went to the big public school her siblings attended so instead attends an expensive private school. But if one kid wants to be a Ninja Warrior and never makes it big, while the other became an accountant and set aside her dream to be a rock and roll singer in order to be practical, they should get the same amount of inheritance. Neither is starving. They just made different choices.

And as others have pointed out, nobody knows whether their children's financial situations will remain the same relative to one another over time. All kinds of things can happen. Divorce, disability, job loss, or winning the lottery.

This poster has it right.

Disagree. OP is the child of a 1%er, or rather a 0.5%er. Presumably OP will receive a large inheritance from her parents, her quibble is that she thinks she deserves a larger one. Excuse me if I can't sympathize with her. I'm the poster above who has no issues with my less financially secure SIL's family inheriting more than my family, and we're far poorer than the OP is.

You completely missed the part where OP said that her sister is doing better financially than she is, but just isn't putting her money into real estate since she has a housing stipend. Where do you think that large chunk of money is going that would have been used to pay for housing? I'm guessing investments or just socked away in savings. The playing field is NOT equal for these two siblings.

And just because you don't advocate for your own family or expect respectful treatment from your parents doesn't mean the rest of us should follow your lead.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. My sister's lives overseas and makes a pretty good amount of money living as an expat. Housing is completely paid for, receives cost of living expense, free ticket home each year. She has a good life. She doesn't want to live in the States and that is why she hasn't purchased a home. Meanwhile, I work my ass off, save money to provide a nice life for my family. I have 2 kids. I wouldn't choose one over the other and I would divide my assets equally regardless of who has what.

I would respect their decision, but I would be hurt. Since it was brought up, I felt that they should know how I feel and to know that just because I own a house, I also own a mortgage and I am not rich. I am for an equal solution. Not one over the other. I want to give them an alternate solution where we can own it equally.

It's in a vacation destination and neither one of us will live there but we would visit.

I would absolutely tell them how you feel, and how hurt you are by their decision, and why. Leave the emotion out of it as best you can. But, it's ultimately their decision. Acknowledge that, too.

I will say, in this situation, it would absolutely affect me relationship with them if they did something like this.

I'm in a situation where it's pretty clear that my parents will leave all of their assets to my sibling who has refused to work for many, many years. She quit every job she ever had in order to chase some relationship across the country, because a coworker was "snippy' to her, or because she didn't like the way the office smelled. Meanwhile, my parents pushed me HARD to earn advanced degrees and get out there in the job market. It's paid off for me, sure, but my family and I are definitely aren't swimming in money. We have financial pressures and tight budgets like millions of other people in this country. My sister and her family take thousands of dollars every month from my parents to keep up their standard of living, all the while she refuses to work and just hangs out brunching and sightseeing all day. My parents have made it clear that they will not help me if I were to ask for it in an emergency. They spoil her child both with visits, calls, college savings, and gifts, while ignoring mine. It's heartbreaking.

I no longer share any of my successes, personal, professional, or otherwise, with my family. It's only been used against me. We're in the market to buy a new home, and I no longer look for houses that can accommodate them as they need assistance in their old age. PPs insist that parents who give more money to one adult child over another are free to make that decision are absolutely right. But when the parents want to claim that they still love their children equally, that's where I get really skeptical. There's the old saying that actions speak louder than words. They've turned their back on my family both emotionally and financially, and I'm not falling for it anymore.

I hope OP is able to find some peace with all of this. Her parents probably won't change their minds, but she CAN take back some sense of control and dignity by focusing exclusively on the needs of her own family from here on out. Good luck, friend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fair doesn't always mean equal.

This is such a shitty response. We all know that when its 2 dresses vs. 4 pairs of shoes or whatever. Not when a million dollars is concerned.

Why? My parents don't have a $1 million vacation home, so this is all hypothetical to me, but why should a parent leave equal amounts to kids who have different standards of living? My SIL is poorer than DH and I, and I have no objection if my ILs leave her/her kids more money than they leave my kids.

So what happens if your DH loses his job, and because of his age can’t get an even remotely similar one? Or one of you gets cancer that eats through your savings. Or a costly divorce? Or he gets hit by a bus tomorrow? Things change. If your life stays as graced as it apparently has been, then you can use your share to help pay for college for your nieces/nephews or whatever.

I suppose one could dig up any excuse for not engaging in philanthropy or being compassionate. My family is luckier than my SIL's family now (inshallah), and we have good savings in the case of a catastrophic event. I would never begrudge having my IL's having peace of mind knowing that they've helped her to the best of their abilities.

I’m not suggesting one not be philanthropic or compassionate, but in OP’s situation, arguably she is in a less financially secure position than her sister, so why should said sister get an extra million just because she hasn’t bought a house with all her money? Good for you that you are so rich than no catastrophe could impact your family’s comfort, but that usually isn’t the case in most families. Usually different standards of living just result from different life choices, and except in the case of special needs or something similar, why should a hard working sibling who saves be penalized for it?

It's one thing to spend more on one child because that child needs more resources in order to be on equal ground with her siblings, like a kid with special learning needs who would drown if she went to the big public school her siblings attended so instead attends an expensive private school. But if one kid wants to be a Ninja Warrior and never makes it big, while the other became an accountant and set aside her dream to be a rock and roll singer in order to be practical, they should get the same amount of inheritance. Neither is starving. They just made different choices.

And as others have pointed out, nobody knows whether their children's financial situations will remain the same relative to one another over time. All kinds of things can happen. Divorce, disability, job loss, or winning the lottery.

This poster has it right.

Disagree. OP is the child of a 1%er, or rather a 0.5%er. Presumably OP will receive a large inheritance from her parents, her quibble is that she thinks she deserves a larger one. Excuse me if I can't sympathize with her. I'm the poster above who has no issues with my less financially secure SIL's family inheriting more than my family, and we're far poorer than the OP is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fair doesn't always mean equal.

This is such a shitty response. We all know that when its 2 dresses vs. 4 pairs of shoes or whatever. Not when a million dollars is concerned.

Why? My parents don't have a $1 million vacation home, so this is all hypothetical to me, but why should a parent leave equal amounts to kids who have different standards of living? My SIL is poorer than DH and I, and I have no objection if my ILs leave her/her kids more money than they leave my kids.

So what happens if your DH loses his job, and because of his age can’t get an even remotely similar one? Or one of you gets cancer that eats through your savings. Or a costly divorce? Or he gets hit by a bus tomorrow? Things change. If your life stays as graced as it apparently has been, then you can use your share to help pay for college for your nieces/nephews or whatever.

I suppose one could dig up any excuse for not engaging in philanthropy or being compassionate. My family is luckier than my SIL's family now (inshallah), and we have good savings in the case of a catastrophic event. I would never begrudge having my IL's having peace of mind knowing that they've helped her to the best of their abilities.

I’m not suggesting one not be philanthropic or compassionate, but in OP’s situation, arguably she is in a less financially secure position than her sister, so why should said sister get an extra million just because she hasn’t bought a house with all her money? Good for you that you are so rich than no catastrophe could impact your family’s comfort, but that usually isn’t the case in most families. Usually different standards of living just result from different life choices, and except in the case of special needs or something similar, why should a hard working sibling who saves be penalized for it?

It's one thing to spend more on one child because that child needs more resources in order to be on equal ground with her siblings, like a kid with special learning needs who would drown if she went to the big public school her siblings attended so instead attends an expensive private school. But if one kid wants to be a Ninja Warrior and never makes it big, while the other became an accountant and set aside her dream to be a rock and roll singer in order to be practical, they should get the same amount of inheritance. Neither is starving. They just made different choices.

And as others have pointed out, nobody knows whether their children's financial situations will remain the same relative to one another over time. All kinds of things can happen. Divorce, disability, job loss, or winning the lottery.

This poster has it right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fair doesn't always mean equal.

This is such a shitty response. We all know that when its 2 dresses vs. 4 pairs of shoes or whatever. Not when a million dollars is concerned.

Why? My parents don't have a $1 million vacation home, so this is all hypothetical to me, but why should a parent leave equal amounts to kids who have different standards of living? My SIL is poorer than DH and I, and I have no objection if my ILs leave her/her kids more money than they leave my kids.

So what happens if your DH loses his job, and because of his age can’t get an even remotely similar one? Or one of you gets cancer that eats through your savings. Or a costly divorce? Or he gets hit by a bus tomorrow? Things change. If your life stays as graced as it apparently has been, then you can use your share to help pay for college for your nieces/nephews or whatever.

Ding ding ding!! THANK YOU for this.

"Why? My parents don't have a $1 million vacation home, so this is all hypothetical to me, but why should a parent leave equal amounts to kids who have different standards of living? My SIL is poorer than DH and I, and I have no objection if my ILs leave her/her kids more money than they leave my kids."

This isn't the parents' vacation home. It is their only home. The mom lives in it right now, full time. The only reason this mom owns such a valuable house is that another family member essentially gifted it to her by selling it at well below fair market value.

My point is that these two daughters grew up working class and both work to provide themselves with a middle class lifestyle. One Million being plopped into the account of anybody here would be a life changing amount of money.

"OP here. My sister's lives overseas and makes a pretty good amount of money living as an expat. Housing is completely paid for, receives cost of living expense, free ticket home each year. She has a good life. She doesn't want to live in the States and that is why she hasn't purchased a home."

So, the sister should have been investing the money she isn't spending on her own housing all this time. This would mean that she's got a significant amount of money saved by this point in time, sitting in an account somewhere. Let's say, conservatively, that this was $2K/month for ten years. That's $24K annually, times 10 years, which is well over $240K, counting all the interest she would have earned on this over time. Plus, there's the money that OP spent on a down payment that the sister should have sitting in an account somewhere.

The mom isn't including this very nice nest egg in her assessment of the "need" of her two children, to the detriment of OP.

The bigger problem with working class families is that they often tend to think about things like real estate as a home, instead of as a financial asset. Once it's in the hands of the heir, she can liquidate it, but that probably hasn't occurred to this clueless mom.