Comment about treating the kids/heirs equally

[Philliefan33]

I am executrix for my parents, so they have filled me in on the generalities of their wills.

I have one brother, we each have two children. My brother has proven to be a poor money manager and my parents have had to help his family at various times over the last twenty five years. My parents don't want to leave him a windfall because he's likely to blow it all. DH and I have done well, and don't really need an inheritance.

My parents have decided to split things evenly six ways, among their two children and four grandchildren. They wanted to make sure the grandkids, my brother's kids especially, would benefit. But they were afraid of a legal fight or bad feelings if they skipped over my brother. By making a six-way split, they hope to avoid issues while getting the inheritance to the people who will benefit most.

 

[Walt34]

I believe the person writing the will should be able to divide their assets however they want.

Yes, this. It's their money, they get to decide.

This is a timely topic as DW just this week received a check for an inheritance from the estate of a great-aunt who passed away almost two years ago. Unfortunately the attorney who administered the estate had a series of health issues that delayed things considerably. The final paperwork showed that the estate started with just under half a million, and one of the things the great-aunt did was divide most of it to her family, including many nephews and nieces, and their descendants if they passed first. She also gave a six-figure amount to two churches.

We all knew the great-aunt was well off but of course no one knew any amounts, and she'd had 24-hour in-home care for her dementia for several years so that could deplete the amount considerably. Like most of the family we were surprised to learn that DW was to be one of the heirs.

Speculation then ran rampant among some family members. We took the position that if DW received anything it might be enough to take us out to dinner and let it go at that, given that the estate was to be divided among 20-some people.

So, earlier this week DW received a check drawn on the estate account for the princely sum of...

$3,500. Not exactly life-changing but better than a poke in the eye.

We are pretty sure that at least one family member is seething over the donations to the churches as she had been the most vocal about what she was going to do with varying speculative amounts.

As for the $3,500, at the moment we haven't the foggiest idea of what she's going to do with it. For now it's in a new savings account in the local brick 'n mortar bank because that's what DW wanted to do.

 

[Pilot2013]

There is no "one size fits all" scenario. As some others have said, things change, sometimes significantly. Recently, my In-laws passed within 2 years of each other.

Sister 1 lives an 8 hour drive away, saw her mother 1 time in the last 4 years, and never saw her father again after coming for 1/2 a day for the mother's funeral. Equal share? I think not.

Sister 2 lives within 1 mile of DW, had a falling out with their father about having her name on his accounts (he just wanted 1 name, not everyones), and did not talk to him ever again from about 2-3 weeks after the mother's death. Equal share? I think not.

DW has cared for her father for the last year and half, to the level of having to change diapers while bedridden for the last 3 months, and leaving her $65k/year job which LUCKILY, she is able to return to. There were previous posts about LTC, which I won't rehash but suffice to say not an option. We also paid funeral expenses for the father. Sister 1 never even came to his funeral. Sister 2 had to sign to open crypt according to Funeral Home requirements, and her only question was "does this obligate me for any costs".

Now, that all said, these folks (in-laws) were not well off. That is to say, we expended most cash keeping his house up (roof leaked causing damage so new roof and repairs, A/C, etc). Their only asset is their paid off home with a value of approx $180k. This home was for some reason put into an Irrevocable Trust 10 years ago, with a specific distribution that is pretty much "equal". I can tell you that the father would have changed that to favor DW if he had the option, but since Irrevocable, not possible.

People may say this is the exception, not the rule, but from the people i have heard from both at work and in personal life, I think some form of this is more the rule than exception.

I can only imagine what kind of headache we would have with DW's sisters if her father were not a retired USPS worker, and her mother a never have worked SAHM.

 

[jazz4cash]

I was thinking that beneficiary designations for investment accounts and insurance policies would be a means to adjust distributions in a way that all heirs would not be provided with details of who got what.

Is the investment/insurance company required to disclose what percentage of the asset the beneficiary is receiving?

 

[Texas Proud]

I have my boyfriend on my ROTH but talked him into making my nephew his heir so if I died and then him my family would get all the money back he didn't spend. He doesn't have family and I didn't want to leave him so much it went to the state.

That is great as long as he goes through with it.... however, you will never know...

As I have stated before, there always is the blond bimbo problem... (you can change it to any description you want, but this was what I was told way back when)... so you die, boyfriend gets your money.... and when he is old and frail a blonde bimbo comes along to show him what he was missing.... and also gets the will changed for everything to go to her.... there is no way to prevent this if you give outright... I do not know enough to know if you can put a contingency on a ROTH, but I highly doubt you can....

 

[Teacher Terry]

If one of my sons died I would not leave it to a spouse. They can inherit from their own parents. If there were grandchildren I would leave that son's share to his kids.

 

[meierlde]

What do you do if both your kids are married, but one has a spouse that you don't like. Would you cut that spouse out if your child pre-deceased the disliked spouse?

You could leave the money in a trust for the grandchildren with income to your kids during their lifetime.

 

[meierlde]

I have 2 children. One child has never been married and has no children. He never wanted children. My other child is married and has 3 children. My grandchildren have given me great joy. I would like to include my grandchildren in our will, but I am unsure how to do it. I don't think that it is fair to give my son less, because he chose not to have children. However, should I give my daughter less, when she chose to have children? What would you suggest?

This is where a trust with income to your children and the rest to the grandchildren when both sons have passed solves the problem. Once again any competent lawyer could handle this very easily. (of course you would need to run everything thru the probate process or perhaps the lawyer could show you how to structure beneficiaries to accomplish this)

 

[meierlde]

It is really up to you... what do YOU want to happen...

I am sure if 100 people gave an answer you would have 100 answers..

As Souschef has suggested, you can set up something for their education and then leave the rest to your two kids...


BUT, you want to make sure that if son with kids dies before you that his inheritance goes to your grand kids.... it is not automatic.... if there is no language in the will and one beneficiary dies before you do... then it is as they never existed.... so in your case the whole estate would go to son with no kids....

Actually I believe in the case of no will the late sons share would go to any descendants he might have. The law in general provides that if an heir had descendants then if the heir died the inheritance goes to the heir's descendants. The percentages involve differ in general if all the inheritors are of the same generator or of different generations.

If there is a will then the will should include such language if desired.

 

[Danmar]

Reading these posts makes me very happy we only have one heir.

 

[youbet]

What do you do if both your kids are married, but one has a spouse that you don't like. Would you cut that spouse out if your child pre-deceased the disliked spouse?

Yes, without hesitation. If they had children, the money would go to my grandkids (via trust if necessary) with nothing to the disliked child-in-law.

 

[Texas Proud]

Actually I believe in the case of no will the late sons share would go to any descendants he might have. The law in general provides that if an heir had descendants then if the heir died the inheritance goes to the heir's descendants. The percentages involve differ in general if all the inheritors are of the same generator or of different generations.

If there is a will then the will should include such language if desired.

I think it matters which state you live... but in Texas you are right... the law states assets do pass to the grandkids of the child died prior to the parent....

However, we were not talking about not having a will, just what would happen if you did not include the correct language in your will...

 

[youbet]

I have the same situation. One son has 2 children, the other has none. I divide everything equally for the 2 sons. However, I set up 529s for both my grandsons.
Also, I am splitting my RMD every year among my 2 sons and my wife's 2 sons. My late mom always said to give it to them while you are alive so they can thank you.

That's similar to what I'm doing...... I'll pay for the grandkid's college, help them with their first house, etc., while I'm alive. (Well, I hope while I'm alive! 529's already well funded.)

 

[youbet]

IMHO, care-giving children are frequently under-rewarded for their efforts. A child who ties him/herself down with parent care duties should be well rewarded regardless of how siblings feel about it.

In our case, DW is responsible for her mom. (Mom is penniless so no monetary "reward" possible.) Mom is now in a NH and having run out of money, is on Medicaid. DW visits 5 - 6 times per week except when we're traveling when a local brother does help out. Sometimes when Mom is not doing well, DW is there all day, everyday for days on end. Two out of town siblings call their mom from time to time but have offered no help to offset DW's considerable expenses ($4k - $5k/yr) or time commitments. If Mom did have some money, it would be a bitter pill if the two out of town sibs shared with DW equally. They just don't "get it" as to how invasive my DW's commitment is to our lives, although they ask for written summaries on how their mom is doing and pry to be sure DW is sure Mom has no assets, etc. Sigh.......

Apparently it's tough for those not directly involved to grasp how much the situation can change your life. I can't imagine non-care giving sibs being upset over a care giving sib being compensated in a parent's will or while the parent is still alive, but apparently it happens.

Greed rules......

 

[aaronc879]

IMO, the inheritance should be equal for all kids. The kids can then decide if they want to share their share with other less financially secure siblings.

 

[kcowan]

Instead I simply gave my share of the estate (~£10k) to my 2 sisters and told my brother what I'd done.

When my brother died, I was his sole heir, even though both my kids lived near him and I lived 2500 miles away. Often they went to his place when he needed help.

I just told them both that he had left a substantial amount to each of them. They went on to buy cottages and have a better memory of their uncle.

 

[RobbieB]

There is wisdom in this.

Would you really want to leave your children with the enduring knowledge of;

"See, they really did love you more, it's right here in black and white"

And not only that, but if it gets probated the entire world can know it too.

 

[growing_older]

Actually I believe in the case of no will the late sons share would go to any descendants he might have. The law in general provides that if an heir had descendants then if the heir died the inheritance goes to the heir's descendants.

This is well worth double checking with a lawyer familiar with your local laws. I am not a lawyer but I know I have been told by one that the way a will in my state and the way beneficiary forms operate are in fact different in this case. For a will, per stirpes is the default and if you leave half to each child, the share of a deceased child goes to his living descendants (if any). On the other hand, leaving 50/50 primary beneficiary designation would by default distribute half to each if alive, but 100% to one if the other predeceases. If you want beneficiary forms to operate per stirpes, like a will in this state, you need special legal language, not just 50% each.

 

[Dog]

I was executor for my Mom when she passed two years ago. She had a small estate that was split evenly among the five of us. We all felt this was fair even though there there was different levels of support and care for Mom in her last few years. I don't think any of us ever expected there to be an inheritance as my parents didn't hesitate to spend while alive (they sold their home at the height of the market). There was minor squabbling over some sentimental items, but overall we all appreciative that Mom and Dad didn't die broke.
DH and I have one daughter, so no issues there. I joke with her that we are spending her inheritance.

 

[pb4uski]

What do you do if both your kids are married, but one has a spouse that you don't like. Would you cut that spouse out if your child pre-deceased the disliked spouse?

Yes, you could leave it in a trust to your child and then when s/he passes to his/her children and bypass the spouse.

 

[Music Lover]

What may be overlooked in some cases is that the person who is leaving more to one child than the other may have a very good reason for doing so that no one else knows about. Perhaps one child was involved in an unforgivable "indiscretion", or more financial help was given to one child over the years that no one is aware of. The will is their way of evening things up and not necessarily to punish the less favourite.

 

[MooreBonds]

Apparently it's tough for those not directly involved to grasp how much the situation can change your life. I can't imagine non-care giving sibs being upset over a care giving sib being compensated in a parent's will or while the parent is still alive, but apparently it happens.

Greed rules......

The worst part is that it is such a touchy subject and difficult way to phrase it to say to a parent or grandparent "Hey, I'm spending hours and hours every week taking care of you, while the others are out enjoying their lives...how about compensating me for my effort and time?" And it's not much easier to say "Hey, how about making it up to me in your will?" Meanwhile, those that care about a loved one sacrifice their lives, while the grasshoppers play...

 

[akck]

We'll be leaving everything equally divided among our 4 boys. They've all said we should spend everything, but that's unlikely assuming we don't have a 30 year market downturn.

For my family, my mom left 10% to each son and 40% to each daughter. Her thoughts were that the boys can take care of their families and the girls might need more. My sisters changed it to 20% sons/30% daughters and went from $50 for each grandchild to $1,000. We wouldn't have had a problem with either distribution. Result, we have a good relationship with my family.

DW's story is a different matter. Her father thought she slighted his second wife (DW never considered her a replacement mother), so he left the house and possessions to DW's sister and a lesser value property to DW. Her sister knew about the change but said nothing. We always assumed DW would inherit nothing, assuming that if her father died first, her kids would end up with most of it (stepmom ended up going first). The result is that DW will no longer speak to her sister, not because of the inheritance division, because DW never got the chance to talk it over with her father. I hold her father equally responsible because he made the change and said nothing.

 

[redduck]

If I wrote here what I think your parents should do, I'd get banned...

Gosh, I think taking the chance of being banned would be a small price to pay--if what you wrote would benefit the OP.

 

[karen1972]

I just had this conversation with my parents. I've suggested they divide it equally and trust we will do the right thing. ie I know 3 out of 5 of us siblings have money issues, but giving them tons of money will not fix their issues as they will immediately spend it stupidly...just as they have for the last 40-50 years. The two responsible siblings, we can take that money, invest it, and if need be assist our siblings when things get bad later on in their lives, help their kids out, ensure the grand kids are taken care of etc. We will never leave our siblings suffer, but we also know just giving it all to them will mean in 20 years they are likely to be desperate and then what? At that point I'm not sure I'd be willing to help them if they squandered everything our parents left them and still couldn't make ends meet which is very likely. In addition, my siblings and their children are in my will since I have no kids, so it will still be passed on to them anyway.