Planning to receive an inheritance

[donheff]

I absolutely do not believe in the concept of inter-generational wealth. The best path would be to settle the estate and give the rest to charity. (of your choice) That way, you know you made your way in this world by merit and without the windfall which you had nothing to do with. You can probably guess, I do not have to worry about receiving an inheritance.

Do you have children? Do you have money?

 

[Shanky]

Do you have children? Do you have money?

Yes (several) & yes.

 

[REWahoo]

Zorba the Greek
I'll never forget that scene.

Zorba the Greek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Three years after asking the question, T-Al finally gets an answer...

 

[Htown Harry]

Sorry for your losses, BigNick. Thanks for posting a follow-up.

Shanky's commentary got me to thinking...

I absolutely do not believe in the concept of inter-generational wealth. The best path would be to settle the estate and give the rest to charity. (of your choice) That way, you know you made your way in this world by merit and without the windfall which you had nothing to do with...

Which led to an evening of surfing through Google terms like: "intergenerational wealth", "bequest motives" and "inheritance attitudes".

I found this paper particularly insightful on the judgments made by all of us as we age and consider our "legacy" in the form of bequests:
Perspectives on intergenerational bequests: Inheritance arrangements and family resources - Family Matters No 88, 2011 - AIFS journal - Publications - Australian Institute of Family Studies

Conclusion

The financial wellbeing of a family obviously owes much to how its elders use the resources that are available to them. How these resources are passed on is closely tied to norms and expectations about obligation and entitlement. How the older generation exercises its own entitlement is not only a potential source of conflict within the family. It also remains an open question for family researchers.


Throughout, the evidence has pointed to the significance of achieving a balanced orientation to inheritance arrangements - a balance in approaches to spending and saving, a balance in judgements about the appropriate divisions of assets, a balance between competing norms. We have already pointed to the attraction of taking a one-sided view of how elders make their inheritance arrangements. [One side of the debate proposes that the current older generation of potential inheritance givers can be seen mostly as "Hedonistic Self-Servers". The other side proposes they can be seen mostly as "Sensible Squirrels".]


One-sided views not only fail to take account of the evidence, but they sell short the experiences, demands and norms that pull bequest-makers in different directions. Instead of carefree nomads or benevolent fairy godmothers and godfathers, it may be more useful to think about elders as ageing jugglers. They are juggling their own needs and interests along with the needs and interests of the family. That is a handful in anyone's terms.

This paper - and almost all of the articles I found - focuses on the motives of the bequestor. Shanky's absolutist opinion and advice to the receiver of a bequest is the other side of a coin, I suppose.

So is my opinion:

One-sided views sell short the experiences, demands and norms that pull bequest-receivers in different directions. They are juggling their own needs and interests along with the needs and interests of the bequestor and the intergenerational family.

Do as you please, BigNick.

 

[Shanky]

Sorry for your losses, BigNick. Thanks for posting a follow-up.

Shanky's commentary got me to thinking...



Which led to an evening of surfing through Google terms like: "intergenerational wealth", "bequest motives" and "inheritance attitudes".

I found this paper particularly insightful on the judgments made by all of us as we age and consider our "legacy" in the form of bequests:
Perspectives on intergenerational bequests: Inheritance arrangements and family resources - Family Matters No 88, 2011 - AIFS journal - Publications - Australian Institute of Family Studies
This paper - and almost all of the articles I found - focuses on the motives of the bequestor. Shanky's absolutist opinion and advice to the receiver of a bequest is the other side of a coin, I suppose.

So is my opinion:

One-sided views sell short the experiences, demands and norms that pull bequest-receivers in different directions. They are juggling their own needs and interests along with the needs and interests of the bequestor and the intergenerational family.

Do as you please, BigNick.

My opinion is only that. I do not believe the choices should be taken away from either the giver or the recipient. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

 

[Ally]

My parents were very well off, very nice home, lots of valuable antiques and art work, due to the fact my dad was a well known artist. I wasn't counting on much, since they liked to travel, but I thought we each receive $1-200,000 probably. However, by the time my my mom with Alzheimer's was cared for at home with 18-24 hour care for 6 years and then my dad the same way for 4 more years, we were selling his antiques and art work nearly every other month to keep them going. (This was with my dad's knowledge and consent.) Plus they had to get a reverse mortgage to pay for care. By the time it was all settled, there was very little left after the estate sale and home sale. It was shocking to see the cost of care. But we were happy they got to stay home and could afford to pay the ladies who cared for them.

 

[Mulligan]

I absolutely do not believe in the concept of inter-generational wealth. The best path would be to settle the estate and give the rest to charity. (of your choice) That way, you know you made your way in this world by merit and without the windfall which you had nothing to do with. You can probably guess, I do not have to worry about receiving an inheritance.

At first, I thought I didn't agree with your philosophy, but upon reflection, I guess I partially agree. Any inheritance I receive, I do not want. I only want to spend my money and nobody else's. I will just put the inherited money in a "lock box" and move it on to my daughter for her. Oddly enough, even though I do not want anyone else's money, I feel a strong desire to make sure I can pass on some of my money to my daughter for her to enjoy as she pleases. Contradictory, I know, but that is my plan.
,

 

[ronocnikral]

At first, I thought I didn't agree with your philosophy, but upon reflection, I guess I partially agree. Any inheritance I receive, I do not want. I only want to spend my money and nobody else's. I will just put the inherited money in a "lock box" and move it on to my daughter for her. Oddly enough, even though I do not want anyone else's money, I feel a strong desire to make sure I can pass on some of my money to my daughter for her to enjoy as she pleases. Contradictory, I know, but that is my plan.
,

If your DD feels the same way as you, I'd be more than happy to ease you of your "burden."

 

[BigNick]

At first, I thought I didn't agree with your philosophy, but upon reflection, I guess I partially agree. Any inheritance I receive, I do not want. I only want to spend my money and nobody else's. I will just put the inherited money in a "lock box" and move it on to my daughter for her. Oddly enough, even though I do not want anyone else's money, I feel a strong desire to make sure I can pass on some of my money to my daughter for her to enjoy as she pleases. Contradictory, I know, but that is my plan.
,

This has been the subject of some interesting discussions between DW and me. We both regard the inheritance money as a lucky bonus, but she sees (some of) it as an opportunity to spend money on fun stuff (mostly travel, although she has been talking about a "very nice car" for some time...) and I want to put it to one side, protect it against inflation, and have it ready to help our children with their projects, most likely buying a home.

Currently a sticking point in our discussions is her insistence on regarding certain specific piles of money as being in some way different from others. For example, we sold our house 5 years ago and started renting, and occasionally she will ask me "how is the house money doing", although it's now pretty hard to identify which of the various piles, plus interest, plus and minus market fluctuations, that money is sitting in. She's now doing the same thing "her money from Mom and Dad", which unfortunately means that a number of logical decisions about that money are probably going to be taken because they would involve it not all sitting in one pile in one account. DW is not very financially sophisticated, and is happy to recognise that, and to allow me to "do all the finances", but unfortunately not to the point where I can fully protect her inheritance from inflation and the various currency exchange issues that affect it.

 

[donheff]

At first, I thought I didn't agree with your philosophy, but upon reflection, I guess I partially agree. Any inheritance I receive, I do not want. I only want to spend my money and nobody else's. I will just put the inherited money in a "lock box" and move it on to my daughter for her. Oddly enough, even though I do not want anyone else's money, I feel a strong desire to make sure I can pass on some of my money to my daughter for her to enjoy as she pleases. Contradictory, I know, but that is my plan.
,

+1 I come out somewhere around here. I received a big enough inheritance to buy a jet ski, essentially none. Had my parents been rich I would probably have used some of any inheritance I received to enhance my life but would not have fundamentally changed anything unless circumstances conspired to whack me financially. But, like Mulligan I plan to back stop my kids and their kids to the extent that I can. If the market does well enough I may also bequest some amounts to selected non-profits but only after building a solid floor for my family. The US focuses very heavily on self sufficiency with a paltry social security benefit and pathetic health care. Society won't backstop our children and grand children but we can. Once they are backstopped, it is time to turn to foundational pursuits a la Buffet and Gates. From my perspective it would be a shame to have built a decent estate and then give it away never to know that your son or daughter was later devastated by accident or illness and unable to send your grand children to college.

 

[Htown Harry]

Currently a sticking point in our discussions is her insistence on regarding certain specific piles of money as being in some way different from others... it's now pretty hard to identify which of the various piles, plus interest, plus and minus market fluctuations, that money is sitting in. She's now doing the same thing "her money from Mom and Dad"...

Texas is a community property state, with community property and separate property concepts embedded in the laws covering wills, marriage and divorce. To oversimplify, assets earned during marriage are shared. Gifts, assets brought to the marriage, and inherited assets are separate.

In such a system, there are any number of reasons to maintain inherited assets in a segregated account or individual title.

Keeping the calculations simple for a divorce property settlement is one, of course, but certainly not the only one. The concepts carry through to a will, where the bequestor may (must?) designate disposition paths for community and separate property.

In my state, at least, maintaining separation for inherited assets makes perfect sense.

 

[BigNick]

Texas is a community property state, with community property and separate property concepts embedded in the laws covering wills, marriage and divorce. To oversimplify, assets earned during marriage are shared. Gifts, assets brought to the marriage, and inherited assets are separate.

In such a system, there are any number of reasons to maintain inherited assets in a segregated account or individual title.

Keeping the calculations simple for a divorce property settlement is one, of course, but certainly not the only one. The concepts carry through to a will, where the bequestor may (must?) designate disposition paths for community and separate property.

In my state, at least, maintaining separation for inherited assets makes perfect sense.

We're in France, where pretty much everything is community property. Plus, DW and I inherited almost the same amount of money. And, she wants me to manage all the money, except that for "her pile" she wants me to also not manage it. The discussion is not yet at a fully rational stage.

 

[Andre1969]

I found out, last August, that my Mom and stepdad have saved up about twice what I had thought. I'm an only child, and my stepdad doesn't have any kids. Mom is older, but in better health, so I'm presuming he's going to die first.

However, a couple months ago, after a funeral, Mom let me know how their estate is set up. If they both die at the same time (a high probability, since they're always together, so a plane crash, car crash, etc could do it), then their estate goes 1/2 to me, and the other half goes to my stepdad's side of the family. One of his sisters and his half-brother, I think. If one dies before the other, they've agreed to stick to that plan, for when the second one dies.

So, they have twice as much as what I thought, but I'll only get half of that, so it's a wash IMO. And, I'm cool with it, as it took both my Mom and my stepdad together to amass what they have.

If the unthinkable did happen, it's a big enough sum (plus they own two houses) that it would move up my retirement date considerably. But, I'd much rather have them around than the money. Even my stepdad.

 

[tryan]

A good friend's grandmother lived in a mansion with OCEAN view ... beautiful and priceless to the family.

But her husband died and she REMARRIED a gentlemen with grown kids. That marriage lasted 20+ years. She dies. Of course ALL the kids and grand kids had their eyes on the mansion with the ocean view (even while the old dude was alive in the house). Very sticky/ugly situation ... but after many threats of legal intervention - my friend was able to BUY the house at a cost which provided grand FIL enough cash to live out his days in assisted living. Still much bitterness between families on both sides as 5-6 people attempted to position themselves to take the house.

 

[BigNick]

However, a couple months ago, after a funeral, Mom let me know how their estate is set up. If they both die at the same time (a high probability, since they're always together, so a plane crash, car crash, etc could do it), then their estate goes 1/2 to me, and the other half goes to my stepdad's side of the family. One of his sisters and his half-brother, I think. If one dies before the other, they've agreed to stick to that plan, for when the second one dies.

This scenario (the two dying simultaneously) is actually pretty unlikely, for a couple of reasons:
- It is way more likely with people of their age (I'm assuming they're over 50) that one will die of something mundane, rather than an accident.
- Even in the case of an accident, simultaneous death is not always assumed. Very often, especially nowadays with safety cages and airbags, people get to hospital alive after even the worst car crashes, but it's the internal injuries from deceleration that kills them - at different speeds.

There were fights in some families after the PanAm 103 (Lockerbie) plane was blown up because the way wills were drawn up meant that a lot of money changed direction depending on who died first. Lawyers got to arguing as to whether a person seated close to the bomb would have been killed by the blast or thrown from the plane before it crashed, whether a small child in a seat would hit the ground after a large adult due to a slightly lower terminal velocity, etc etc. It was horrific, in all senses.

It sounds like that won't make too much of a difference to your planning, but I wanted to make that point that planning for car and plane crashes is unlikely to be a very productive use of time. (You might, however, want to consider including clauses about "If my spouse dies within one year of my death", etc)

 

[Mulligan]

+1 I come out somewhere around here. I received a big enough inheritance to buy a jet ski, essentially none. Had my parents been rich I would probably have used some of any inheritance I received to enhance my life but would not have fundamentally changed anything unless circumstances conspired to whack me financially. But, like Mulligan I plan to back stop my kids and their kids to the extent that I can. If the market does well enough I may also bequest some amounts to selected non-profits but only after building a solid floor for my family. The US focuses very heavily on self sufficiency with a paltry social security benefit and pathetic health care. Society won't backstop our children and grand children but we can. Once they are backstopped, it is time to turn to foundational pursuits a la Buffet and Gates. From my perspective it would be a shame to have built a decent estate and then give it away never to know that your son or daughter was later devastated by accident or illness and unable to send your grand children to college.

I agree, my estate will never allow anyone to be a "trust baby". But, I do hope, like you Donheff, that it could be a nice backstop or, security in her old age. Hopefully, I will live long enough that she will view the money in that manner when she receives it. If I die too soon, she may blow it. And if I live too long, there may be nothing for her.

 

[Andre1969]

This scenario (the two dying simultaneously) is actually pretty unlikely, for a couple of reasons:
- It is way more likely with people of their age (I'm assuming they're over 50) that one will die of something mundane, rather than an accident.
- Even in the case of an accident, simultaneous death is not always assumed. Very often, especially nowadays with safety cages and airbags, people get to hospital alive after even the worst car crashes, but it's the internal injuries from deceleration that kills them - at different speeds.

Yeah, it's still pretty unlikely. I think my Mom and stepdad worry about it more than I do. Mom was the one that brought it up. My attitude is that whatever happens, happens, and I hope they're both here for a long, long time.

The thing that I think is going to be a big mess though, is the fact that, once they're both gone, EVERYTHING is split 50/50. Money, houses, etc. It's not specified that I get this, stepdad's family gets that, etc. The second house is down in Florida...Grand Island or someplace like that. I think it's kinda close to Disney World. I've never seen it, and have no desire to ever live down there, so I wouldn't want to hang onto it. But, I think my stepdad's half-brother lives down there. He might. I've never even met the half-brother, and haven't seen the sister in, oh, probably 25 years.

Plus, right now Mom is 64 and my stepdad turns 61 in July. They're both still fairly healthy, although he gets stressed and frazzled, I think he has high blood pressure, and too much of his self-worth was tied up in his job. Now that they're both retired, I think it's wearing on him. So, I think it's stuff like that, that ensures that she's going to outlive him. But, you never know!

Anyway, by the time they're both passed on, presuming they live out an "average" lifespan, I don't think any inheritance I received would make much difference. Even if it happened in, say, 10 years, by that time I'll most likely be retired, and unless I move and buy a more expensive place, the mortgage will be long since paid off.

Still, I'm not budgeting for any inheritance, even though I'm in my uncle's will (no kids of his own) and my grandmother's will (only grandkid) as well.

Now that I think of it, if you get an inheritance from someone other than your spouse or blood parents, you have to pay inheritance tax on EVERYTHING, right? So, whatever I got from my uncle and grandmother would be taxed? And in theory, if my Mom goes first, and then I get half the estate from my stepdad, the full amount of that would get taxed as well?

I remember my grandmother's cousin saying that when she inherited a house from her stepmother (her father passed away first), she had to pay inheritance tax on everything; there was no exempted amount.

 

[Meadbh]

We're in France, where pretty much everything is community property. Plus, DW and I inherited almost the same amount of money. And, she wants me to manage all the money, except that for "her pile" she wants me to also not manage it. The discussion is not yet at a fully rational stage.

Just explain that money is fungible.

 

[Sue J]

In regards to keeping inherited money jointly with spouse or keeping it separate......

DH and I each have one living parent, his Mom is 84, my Dad is 87. Sometime within the next decade one or both of us will inherit something. If it's from my Dad I know the amount and it will not be life changing. We don't know the range if it's DH's Mom, but there are 4 other siblings.

We've been together since age 16 and my family is his family, his family is my family. No divorces, no remarriages, no step siblings anywhere.

All our assets have always been jointly held, except for my IRA and his pension, although his pension is 100% to me as his survivor.

We decided that any inheritance from either side would be jointly held. Is there any reason to not do this? We have wills with 100% to each other and then 50/50 to our 2 sons if we died at the same time.

This just makes sense for the 2 of us, but the folks on the forum have a lot more experience with things like this. Am I missing something that I should know?

 

[Htown Harry]

In regards to keeping inherited money jointly with spouse or keeping it separate......

Since I probably raised the concern, I'll take a shot. Note I am not a lawyer.

Your description of circumstances is very similar to mine, except only one of four parents is deceased.

I believe when the facts are very straightforward, any "risk" of mixing separate assets is low. (Until it's not, some might say...)

My DF was single at the time of his death, so after some specific bequeaths were distributed I received a sibling's 1/3 share of the remaining estate. The inheritance consisted of miscellaneous account balances, a piece of real estate (sold and converted to cash by the executor), an IRA with 3 equal beneficiaries, and a life insurance policy with 3 equal beneficiaries.

The inherited IRA has its own tax rules that essentially demand that the funds stay forever in a separate account, unless one is willing to pay lots of taxes through an immediate or 5-year withdrawal instead of using the RMD schedule.

DW and I had been married for 15 years at the time and I figured she wouldn't run me off in the future if she hadn't by that point. I put the life insurance proceeds and other cash from the inheritance into a house purchase that was jointly titled.

It would be an accounting nightmare to unring that bell, but I have no regrets or worries.

 

[LitGal]

Re. the Original OP...

I've planned for no inheritance, though one may be possible, given my 87-year-old mother's frugal ways.

When growing up, I noticed two "family approaches" to inheritances which seemed unwise (or at least distasteful):

1) Mom had a teaching credential and subbed to supplement family "extras." However, if/when a regular job could have been a great help to the family (and take some pressure off my dad), she usually said the following: "I don't want to work, and shouldn't have to. My dad made plenty of money, and I'll inherit that from him when he dies."

2) There were family stories of relatives manipulating other family members in hopes of getting bequests. Other stories told of children inheriting unequal amounts, based upon how they were viewed by the deceased. Some unsuspecting offspring were ignored and left nothing, then spent years trying to figure out why.

It was just too much drama. Life is simpler if I can just stay away from it all.

Oh, and by the way, Mom's dad died at 98. He had paid all his health care costs out of pocket after Medicare paid (he refused to buy a Medigap policy). He'd retired at 60, living off stocks he'd bought (and learned to invest in) while farming 10 acres during the Depression and up through the 1960's. All with only a third grade education. I always thought that was pretty impressive.

My mom was incensed. Little $ was left, after he had lived on his investments for 38 years. By then she was in her late 60's..... a little late to begin serious retirement savings.....

DH and I have planned to take care of ourselves.

 

[DeborahB]

Well... I do plan on getting an inheritance. I can live without it - the bulk of what I have now I saved on my own or through investments. But I expect to get some money, and that will ease my mind as to having "enough". I have no children, my one sibling is unmarried and has no children... I am comfortable with getting the money that my grandfather (originally) wanted to stay in the family. If I haven't spent it all at my death - I'll see. Right now it goes to my SO if I predecease him.

 

[citrine]

Interesting topic....if my father goes first, my mother will spend it all...kind of like the ones who win the lottery and buy anything and everything. My mother has no financial sense at all and the only reason she can exist is because my father handles all the money and the bills. If my mother goes before my father, then I will inherit something.
DH's mom passed away two years ago and he received about 50K from the estate split between 5 other brothers. The oldest one started so many wars over the ranch oak furniture...it was not even taken care of! We have a few pieces from his home and I love them more than anything
Life is too crazy, people are nuts, and money does strange things to people....not counting on any of it for myself, if it happens great. I just hope we don't get stuck with my mother's shopping addiction!

 

[Trish558]

My thoughts....

For many years my husband and I saved every penny we could so that early retirement would be possible. We were almost at the point of me retiring at 55 and my husband retiring within the next two years, when I received an inheritance from my father. The money padded our nest egg quite a bit. It was like having icing on the cake. We both retired at 55.

The downside of this windfall was that my mother, who had divorced my abusive father when I was four years old, wanted her fair share. (Everything she felt he owed her plus interest from 50 + years ago.) My mother, who collects SS and a very comfortable retirement of her own, has been angry ever since. Sometimes an inheritance doesn’t always turn out just the way you think it will. L

I wouldn’t plan on any inheritance, until it happens. Then it’s a nice surprise…..in most cases. J

 

[tryan]

A systems analyst gave me this tibit for settling an estate:

Divide the estate into equal monitary "piles" by assigning values to hierlooms (furniture, china, the piano ...). One pile for each heir.

Now each heir draws a stick (varying in size shortest to longest).

Shortest stick picks a pile ... then the next shortest stick picks until the longest stick remains.

The longest stick chooses ANY pile (swapping with another - if needed).

This ensures everyone had a choice between piles.