Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP here... would you consider financial situations? Sibling A has made no effort to save and has made many life decisions that have put them in a lesser financial situation (though far from destitute). Sibling B makes a decent income (but not extravagant) but lives very frugally and has saved since the first job out of college when they made a very meager salary.
Sibling A is also child free and Sibling B is not.
Curious the thoughts on this?
If Sibling A has no children and Sibling B does have children, it sounds like Sibling B is patting themselves on the back for being a parent, and thus needing to have different financial plans than Sibling A when the choice to have children is not a better or more correct choice than remaining childfree, but merely a personal preference.
My guess is that OP is Sibling B and is angling for more of the inheritance for OP's children and is using Sibling A's financial situation as justification for why the grandparents should give more money to B for the grandkids.
Nope. Should be 50/50. Sibling B then could give their kids any potion of their 50% share if they wish. Why would it come from sibling A’s 50% share? They are not sibling A’s kids.
Op here. We’d be totally fine with that and what we told was going to be the case and now they’re changing to give sibling A more
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP here... would you consider financial situations? Sibling A has made no effort to save and has made many life decisions that have put them in a lesser financial situation (though far from destitute). Sibling B makes a decent income (but not extravagant) but lives very frugally and has saved since the first job out of college when they made a very meager salary.
Sibling A is also child free and Sibling B is not.
Curious the thoughts on this?
If Sibling A has no children and Sibling B does have children, it sounds like Sibling B is patting themselves on the back for being a parent, and thus needing to have different financial plans than Sibling A when the choice to have children is not a better or more correct choice than remaining childfree, but merely a personal preference.
My guess is that OP is Sibling B and is angling for more of the inheritance for OP's children and is using Sibling A's financial situation as justification for why the grandparents should give more money to B for the grandkids.
Nope. Should be 50/50. Sibling B then could give their kids any potion of their 50% share if they wish. Why would it come from sibling A’s 50% share? They are not sibling A’s kids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP here... would you consider financial situations? Sibling A has made no effort to save and has made many life decisions that have put them in a lesser financial situation (though far from destitute). Sibling B makes a decent income (but not extravagant) but lives very frugally and has saved since the first job out of college when they made a very meager salary.
Sibling A is also child free and Sibling B is not.
Curious the thoughts on this?
If Sibling A has no children and Sibling B does have children, it sounds like Sibling B is patting themselves on the back for being a parent, and thus needing to have different financial plans than Sibling A when the choice to have children is not a better or more correct choice than remaining childfree, but merely a personal preference.
My guess is that OP is Sibling B and is angling for more of the inheritance for OP's children and is using Sibling A's financial situation as justification for why the grandparents should give more money to B for the grandkids.
We had a situation where a childless aunt had a will that left her estate equally to her living siblings. The aunt updated it immediately after one of her siblings died, even though that sibling had an extremely close relationship to her, as did that sibling's children among all the nephews and nieces. There was a lot of resentment because the aunt was already in her 80's, and the estate was relatively fairly substantial. The aunt thought this was the fairest approach, but the children of the deceased sibling felt discounted and hurt. Of course the aunt died within a year.Anonymous wrote:My sibling has more kids than me and I assume my parents will leave more money to them. I guess I don’t see why the math should be generation specific. Dividing by grandchildren seems as legitimate as dividing by children.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP here. I think it's odd that there's not specific money set aside for our child, but I don't really know how this works. I kind of thought they'd set aside $X for the one grandchild and split the rest evenly between siblings. Instead they said they were going to just do 50/50; fine, we can set money aside for our DC. But now they are going back and wanting to revise it to not make the split equal and give more to the sibling without a child.
I see how couples decide to split assets all the time in my career. It is VERY rare for money to be left directly to grandchildren amongst my clients. The assumption most of them make is that by leaving it to their children, the grandchildren will then benefit. A lot assume it will be used for college, weddings, etc. anyway and honestly, it often does. It also gets complicated to leave money directly to a minor/young person. I've also seen where a 20 year old gambled away a huge inheritance. Sure you can set up a trust, but they're complex, annoying, and not even foolproof against the money getting blown. And because of this mindset, 50/50 (or evenly, depending on number of children) is how the vast majority divide up their assets. No parent wants to start playing the game of which child deserves more or less based on success or life choices.
Yeah this. I have the only grandchildren, but my parents never considered leaving money separately for them. But my share will go into a pot of money that will need to be spent on their college education, so of course it will probably end up helping them. Leaving money to just then sounds confusing... don't think they will have the wisdom as teens or young adults to use it wisely.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP here. I think it's odd that there's not specific money set aside for our child, but I don't really know how this works. I kind of thought they'd set aside $X for the one grandchild and split the rest evenly between siblings. Instead they said they were going to just do 50/50; fine, we can set money aside for our DC. But now they are going back and wanting to revise it to not make the split equal and give more to the sibling without a child.
I see how couples decide to split assets all the time in my career. It is VERY rare for money to be left directly to grandchildren amongst my clients. The assumption most of them make is that by leaving it to their children, the grandchildren will then benefit. A lot assume it will be used for college, weddings, etc. anyway and honestly, it often does. It also gets complicated to leave money directly to a minor/young person. I've also seen where a 20 year old gambled away a huge inheritance. Sure you can set up a trust, but they're complex, annoying, and not even foolproof against the money getting blown. And because of this mindset, 50/50 (or evenly, depending on number of children) is how the vast majority divide up their assets. No parent wants to start playing the game of which child deserves more or less based on success or life choices.
Anonymous wrote:OP here... would you consider financial situations? Sibling A has made no effort to save and has made many life decisions that have put them in a lesser financial situation (though far from destitute). Sibling B makes a decent income (but not extravagant) but lives very frugally and has saved since the first job out of college when they made a very meager salary.
Sibling A is also child free and Sibling B is not.
Curious the thoughts on this?
Anonymous wrote:OP here... would you consider financial situations? Sibling A has made no effort to save and has made many life decisions that have put them in a lesser financial situation (though far from destitute). Sibling B makes a decent income (but not extravagant) but lives very frugally and has saved since the first job out of college when they made a very meager salary.
Sibling A is also child free and Sibling B is not.
Curious the thoughts on this?
Anonymous wrote:Sure. I would leave my child, who has some health issues, a lot more than the one who doesn't.
Also, I would consider their life circumstances outside of health.
Anonymous wrote:How about if one 'adult child' is nearly sixty, able bodied and has an able bodied wife but has made a career out of being a parasite off of the parents while the other two siblings have earned their own way and lived within their means? This is our situation. The Golden Child has been milking my parents for money for twenty years already with no end in sight. He thinks the estate should be divided evenly three ways because the gifts he has received already are irrelevant. He appears to think that he is simply more deserving and entitled to generous 'gifts' than anyone else is.