How to structure unusual will?

[The Cosmic Avenger]

Once the money is B's, it is B's. However if B is getting a limited yearly stipend, how motivated would B be to "give" money to a sibling earning significantly more than she does? (It would be different if A were destitute.)

I don't know, but if they're both well off and B and A have a good relationship, it's not that far-fetched that B would gift half of the stipend to A.

So, the reason this seemed important to me is that there is probably no point in trying to set up a trust if there is a way around it like that. In fact, I would think gifting half of a one-time, lump sum inheritance would cause a tax headache for B, as opposed to gifting half of a stipend every year, so the trust route might have the opposite of the intended effect, with a much higher management cost.

Please note that, while I have my opinions on the dynamics, I'm not trying (much) to press them on you, GoodbyeYellow, as that has been overdone already. I'm just trying to help explore the feasibility of the options and the likely outcomes.

 

[ivinsfan]

Once the money is B's, it is B's. However if B is getting a limited yearly stipend, how motivated would B be to "give" money to a sibling earning significantly more than she does? (It would be different if A were destitute.)

Actually post 1 says that daughter B told her parents that she (DDB) would leave the remaining money in her will to daughter A's children. This is what the OP was objecting to for whatever reason. So OP would like to control his money after the death of 3 people...

 

[SecondCor521]

I posted earlier in this thread but haven't for a while, and not since OP's post #84.

I wanted to post and say that my understanding of OP's situation before post #84 was different. I was thinking of a situation where I buy my kids a fast food meal. I expect them to chew with their mouths closed and thank me for buying them food. I'd also expect them to pay it forward when they could. But I wouldn't keep track of "Oh, I've bought them 241 meals and they've only bought me 3, so I'm going to stop because it's unequal."

That is far different than what OP describes in post #84. I am saddened that OP is going through that stuff and think OP's reaction is understandable. It might be fixable with some combination of intense family counseling, a divorce, or maybe a restraining order. But that is quite intense stuff to deal with and I don't mean my suggestion in the previous sentence to be a panacea or silver bullet, only a suggestion.

I also apologize to the OP for misunderstanding their situation. I appreciate the further explanation even though they didn't owe it to me. Also, my comments before post #84 should be understood to be based on my misunderstanding.

...

A story with possible applicability to the OP and others: My Mom passed away in 2016 and her last will was written in 1999. My parents' situation had changed sufficiently where the effects of her will as written would not have been optimal. On the advice of the attorney, the four affected people (my Dad, myself, and my two siblings) wrote and submitted to the local probate court a TEDRA agreement which effectively changed the terms of my Mom's will to a more optimal solution.

The point is that after you pass away, your Will is not iron clad. The beneficiaries can change it with a TEDRA agreement as long as they all agree.

TEDRA is a federal law.

 

[marko]

So how exactly would frances or her mother or her sblings have been better off with an independent executor?

Or more generally consider the case of a single heir inheriting 100%

Consider also the possible costs of the independent executor

From personal experience, an independent executor distributes the assets strictly according to the will. This eliminates hard feelings toward the family member executor who is also often under pressure to ignore the intentions spelled out in the will and "but grandma told me" issues.

There's nothing that can be done about someone feeling slighted but it's not a family member doing the slighting...in a way it puts the "blame" back on the deceased. The person who is the larger or sole beneficiary is essentially an innocent bystander instead of a "thief". This is particularly important when the executor is also the sole beneficiary.

What the recipient does afterwards is up to them but the intent of the deceased's wishes are honored. It is about fulfilling what the deceased wanted that should have priority.

 

[OldShooter]

From personal experience, an independent executor distributes the assets strictly according to the will. This eliminates hard feelings toward the family member executor who is also often under pressure to ignore the intentions spelled out in the will and "but grandma told me" issues.

There's nothing that can be done about someone feeling slighted but it's not a family member doing the slighting...in a way it puts the "blame" back on the deceased and the person who is the larger beneficiary is essentially an innocent bystander.

What the recipient does afterwards is up to them but the intent of the deceased's wishes are honored. It is about fulfilling what the deceased wanted that should have priority.

This is true in spades for a family member trustee who has any kind of discretion in handling or distributing trust assets. One solution is a sort of good cop/bad cop scenario where a professional trustee is named co-trustee. This allows the family member to be a good cop and to blame any unhappiness on the professional. They are very used to saying "no" --- it's in the job description.

 

[MarieIG]

Actually post 1 says that daughter B told her parents that she (DDB) would leave the remaining money in her will to daughter A's children. This is what the OP was objecting to for whatever reason. So OP would like to control his money after the death of 3 people...

I know. I read the post. OP cannot control B's will. And - by the time B passes (hopefully, many many years in the future) she may have accrued her own estate far in excess of what she (may) inherit from OP, she may have or adopt her own child, she may decide not to leave her estate to her nieces/ nephews (relationships change or she may wish to benefit a charity), her estate may flow through her DH effectively cutting off the nieces and nephews, she may use up her funds for long term care for herself or her DH, etc.

Edit: Based upon the concern raised by Gumby in post #85, I would not tell either A or B of any intent to cut A out of estate.

 

[ncbill]

I know. I read the post. OP cannot control B's will. And - by the time B passes (hopefully, many many years in the future) she may have accrued her own estate far in excess of what she (may) inherit from OP, she may have or adopt her own child, she may decide not to leave her estate to her nieces/ nephews (relationships change or she may wish to benefit a charity), her estate may flow through her DH effectively cutting off the nieces and nephews, she may use up her funds for long term care for herself or her DH, etc.

Yep.

OP should move everything (even real estate) into a revocable living trust ASAP since probate's a bear (pun intended) in California.

Leave everything to B but understand trying to control what they do with their inheritance is difficult (and expensive!) to control after OP dies.

That would require an irrevocable trust with a paid, 3rd party (e.g. corporate) trustee which, again, is expensive to setup & administer.

Versus the run-of-the mill revocable living trust simply designed to bypass probate mentioned above.

Ultimately, does OP really want to see a significant portion of B's inheritance consumed by their "dead hand from the grave" restrictions?

 

[ivinsfan]

I know. I read the post. OP cannot control B's will. And - by the time B passes (hopefully, many many years in the future) she may have accrued her own estate far in excess of what she (may) inherit from OP, she may have or adopt her own child, she may decide not to leave her estate to her nieces/ nephews (relationships change or she may wish to benefit a charity), her estate may flow through her DH effectively cutting off the nieces and nephews, she may use up her funds for long term care for herself or her DH, etc.

Edit: Based upon the concern raised by Gumby in post #85, I would not tell either A or B of any intent to cut A out of estate.

Exactly... your comments about the limited yearly stipend and possibly giving some of it away to A or to A's children don't really apply here. Apparently B already knows since she told her father that as of the present she planned to leave money to her sister's children. Obviously a lot can happen in the course of decades but the OP specifically wanted none of DB money to go to his grandchildren by DA.. I'm curious what the OP will finally decide to do.


From some of the posts here recounting family history of posters quite a few people get invested on exactly where all their money and stuff goes..each person gets to decide for themselves....but controlling from the grave is pretty hard and/or expensive.

 

[ivinsfan]

From personal experience, an independent executor distributes the assets strictly according to the will. This eliminates hard feelings toward the family member executor who is also often under pressure to ignore the intentions spelled out in the will and "but grandma told me" issues.

There's nothing that can be done about someone feeling slighted but it's not a family member doing the slighting...in a way it puts the "blame" back on the deceased. The person who is the larger or sole beneficiary is essentially an innocent bystander instead of a "thief". This is particularly important when the executor is also the sole beneficiary.

What the recipient does afterwards is up to them but the intent of the deceased's wishes are honored. It is about fulfilling what the deceased wanted that should have priority.

The person might be an innocent bystander but that's often not the way it plays out. The person excluded or shorted very often switches their hard feelings or feelings of injustice the "favored" party. That's just the way people are and so the family dynamics continue on ..I'd urge all of us who are about to die..(which is everyone of us) to think about this.

 

[RoBo]

Possible but Wise?

At least I think it may be unusual, but who knows.

California, self and wife, 2 married daughters, one in state, one not. Labels: A and B respectively. A and spouse are considerably ahead, financially, of B and spouse and will likely remain that way.

A and husband have repeatedly deserved their way out of anything we might have left them. So originally, we figured B and hubby would get it all, CA home included plus likely 7 figures plus in liquid assets (that would depend on timing and some other things of course but it is likely). In any case, the house is definitely that and more. When we shared this original plan with her, B clearly stated she will not live in CA,

So recently B, who is still on good(ish) terms with A, indicated she would leave a good percentage of whatever she got from us in her will to A's child(ren). (B will probably not have kids).

This does not suit us well. Are there ways to prevent, or substantially prevent, that last intention above from being fulfilled? It is our money, our hard work that created it, so we say no thank you to that plan.

One idea but I don't know how far that will fly:

Write the will to provide B a small percentage of the balance each year. For example 3 or 4% a year of the liquid assets until depleted. Idea is to give her enough (they are comfortable, but not very comfortable) that their life improves, but not enough that it improves to the point where they get demotivated to do anything, and certainly not enough to where they feel they can easily part with half of it.

The house we could will to charity, but I'd really like to give it to an org that does a good job helping the unhoused, or children or elders needing special care.

Other ideas? I plan to meet an attorney but need to select one first, and would like to have some idea of the possibilities before meeting.

I am a retired attorney. There are many ways this could be accomplished (all of which certainly will help the attorneys, banks and trustees!) but, if B really is determined there is little you can do [e.g., she could 'live' on your $$ and give her own $$ to A's children]. Such a trust makes some sense if you do not trust the judgment of B and/or her ability to invest such $$

If you do trust B's judgment and your primary desire is to see your $$ go to B, rather than a charity, I suggest that what you should do is to give it to B outright without restrictions other than your advice. Of course she will spend it, save it, and invest it different than you would have. But then, you will be gone and it is impossible to project what circumstances might then be. Do not tarnish her memory of you because of what she will certainly come to see as your lack of trust of her. Even if you disagree with B's present thinking about putting the $$ into a trust for A's children, B sure sounds like a mature and thoughtful adult whose values are in the right places.

Or better yet, as your financial circumstances allow, start gifting it now so that you can have the fun of watching B enjoy it, rather than projecting how she might use it when you are gone! Maybe buy them that new car they need; or help them with a downpayment on a new house they long for; or send them on that cruise they have always wanted. We are doing this with our kids and are having a great time seeing them enjoy the $$ that we worked and saved for.

 

[Pluperfect]

TEDRA is a federal law.

TEDRA is not a federal law.

 

[Gumby]

TEDRA is not a federal law.

But is it a uniform code, so it will be identical or very similar in states that have adopted it.

 

[SecondCor521]

TEDRA is not a federal law.

My mistake. You're correct. Apologies.

 

[Smoeller]

Here's A Thought

Initially you could leave an appropriate amount to your daughter/s
Then create an educational trust or foundation that could be used for advanced schooling or educational purposes for descendants into the future
This may be a good way to encourage higher education and/or professional training into the future and leave a positive legacy for future generations

 

[RetMD21]

From personal experience, an independent executor distributes the assets strictly according to the will. This eliminates hard feelings toward the family member executor who is also often under pressure to ignore the intentions spelled out in the will and "but grandma told me" issues.

There's nothing that can be done about someone feeling slighted but it's not a family member doing the slighting...in a way it puts the "blame" back on the deceased. The person who is the larger or sole beneficiary is essentially an innocent bystander instead of a "thief". This is particularly important when the executor is also the sole beneficiary.

What the recipient does afterwards is up to them but the intent of the deceased's wishes are honored. It is about fulfilling what the deceased wanted that should have priority.

Maybe I should look into being a professional executor for estates with a sole beneficiary. It seems like it would be easy.

 

[skyking1]

I've read through the thread. I was avoiding it, but it was the last place that RobbieB posted and I followed through.
There are the nuts and bolts of trusts and executors and stipends on the one side, and on the other are the feelings that the OP and his spouse have regarding the mostly estranged child.
I would offer the idea that B still has some contact with A and that grand child, and if something good for them comes from that contact, it is a good thing.

 

[ncbill]

I've read through the thread. I was avoiding it, but it was the last place that RobbieB posted and I followed through.
There are the nuts and bolts of trusts and executors and stipends on the one side, and on the other are the feelings that the OP and his spouse have regarding the mostly estranged child.
I would offer the idea that B still has some contact with A and that grand child, and if something good for them comes from that contact, it is a good thing.

Sounds like the problem is a son-in-law.

But there are plenty of ways to ensure he gets nothing while still helping the grandkids, usually via one or more trusts.

I personally wouldn't want to shortchange my grandkids simply because one of my kids married a controlling jerk.

 

[zippy2020]

Just FYI, RE is not always such a gift as you might think to charities. Maintenance, insurance, liability, etc., are a headache, and take time/$$$ to administer. I'd suggest leaving instruction to sell the house, adding whatever net proceeds to the total estate.

How about leaving 50-60% to your favored daughter, and the remainder disbursed in equal shares to your other daughter's children, when they turn 25?

 

[tryan]

I would be wary of A post divorce ... she might really need your loot to "move on". How about a trust that releases her wad if-and-only-if she is divorced.