How to structure unusual will?

[GoodbyeYellow]

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.

 

[REWahoo]

Other ideas?

Spend it - all of it. See the "Blow That Dough" thread for inspiration and suggestions.

 

[Sunset]

It's pretty hard to control your money from the grave.

The idea of doling out 3 or 4% a year, is really talking about a trust, and they are fraught with their own issues and unintended consequences. They can also be broken for various reasons.

I'd go spend the money you earned and enjoy life more, rather than worry about leaving some and wanting to control who gets it.

Maybe just make up your Will to leave 70% to one, and 30% to the other, and go enjoy life. You do want to leave enough to the "bad" one to make them not contest the Will.

 

[statsman]

I would do 50/50 and let the daughters figure it out after you're gone. If the daughters want to gift to each other later and/or to their nieces/nephews, let them make that decision. If you are able to gift money now and still maintain your retirement plan, you could do that too.

 

[luckydude]

It's pretty hard to control your money from the grave.

The idea of doling out 3 or 4% a year, is really talking about a trust, and they are fraught with their own issues and unintended consequences. They can also be broken for various reasons.

I'd go spend the money you earned and enjoy life more, rather than worry about leaving some and wanting to control who gets it.

Maybe just make up your Will to leave 70% to one, and 30% to the other, and go enjoy life. You do want to leave enough to the "bad" one to make them not contest the Will.

+1

I come from money from both sides of the family, and I can give you plenty of horror stories about how relatives decided to "punish" their offspring for one reason or another by disinheriting them or leaving them very small amounts. As the estates involved were usually substantial (7-8-9 figures), results were usually lawsuits and lengthy litigation and turning siblings (who got along before) against one another.

To OP: I am sure you have your reasons, but I would advise you strongly against doing anything of the sort. If you want to dole out your money to B and structure it in a way to make sure that B doesn't blow it, do that. But once the money is left to B, it becomes hers; let her decide what to do with it instead of you trying to control what happens to it after you're gone.

It's very tempting for parents to want to use money as a way to reward/punish their children for their behaviors, but often this results in passing whatever grievances they harbor down to the next generation and creating resentment and anger among their children due to inequity of inheritance. This is a surefire way to destroy a family. Don't do it. Whatever grievances and resentments you may harbor when you're alive, take them with you to the grave when you pass, and let the livings go on with their lives unencumbered.

FWIW, DW and I will leave a substantial 8-figure legacy to our two kids, and I plan (and hope) that I will leave them equal shares no matter what happens after they grow up. My two kids get along great, and I would never want to turn them against each other just because I somehow decided that one is more deserving of my legacy than the other.

 

[RobbieB]

Buy a boat.

 

[ivinsfan]

The solution to this is simple don't ever die. It's way easier to control everyone from above ground

 

[FLSUnFIRE]

You can't dictate, especially from the grave, A and B's relationship. Once it's B's it is B's to do with as she pleases. If you really don't want A to get anything, spend it now or give it all to charity. Or possibly a trust that will only provide for certain expenses (medical, LTC, etc) for B (and maybe A?) and upon their death goes to charity?


Not knowing details and family politics, if you want to shut out A, fine but if you give to B, do it without restriction and accept that she may share with her sister. IMO, it is unfair (cruel?) to B to put stress on her to not share if she feels compelled to do so; don't put her between you and A...especially after death. She doesn't need to deal with additional guilt (of either not sharing with A or violating your wishes) in addition to grief.

 

[JoeWras]

Spend it now.

Will each a decent amount 50/50. Say, $100k or so. Not token, not the whole mess.

Will the vast majority to charity. Let the charity deal with the house and other complex assets. That will also be a gift to your kids.

 

[donheff]

Wow. You really hate daughter A if you visit her sins on her children and on daughter B for merely caring about her nieces and nephews. If you plan to disinherit the entire family why not leave everything to a good charity?

 

[Dash man]

You can set up a trust with a corporate trustee to pay any trust income to B, and upon her death give the balance to charity.
I think you would be much happier in your heart if you find a way to forgive A for whatever she has done. Carrying this pain around will only make your life and that of your family miserable.

 

[mystang52]

If you really want to leave A with nothing from your estate, be certain that is explicitly stated in the Will. I'd suggest, as at least one other did, some small percentage, to go to A and balance to B.
Regardless, once you're gone it'll be B's money to spend as she wishes. I highly doubt that a limit on how B spends the inheritance would be legally enforceable. Excluding A from the Will would already express your emotions about her. Leave it at that.

 

[MarieIG]

Sounds like you are looking for a trust. A trust can pay out a bit at a time until it is exhausted or closed. You can specifically name beneficiaries, and special triggers for payment. You could add a charity and/ or the grandchildren to receive the remainder when your child of choice passes. You will need to speak with your estate attorney as to how to make this tax efficient and somewhat flexible, in the event your assets, as of the DOD of the second spouse to die, are not what you expect them to be, i.e. the liquid assets have been somewhat exhausted and the house is the bulk of the estate.

Also, you may wish to list beneficiaries (and contingent beneficiaries) on some of your accounts so the assets pass outside of the will. This is especially important on retirement accounts (i.e. spouse beneficiary, child or choice contingent beneficiary).

Good luck.

 

[dmpi]

Being vindictive will tarnish your legacy, history will be reinterpreted/rewritten by those still around, and future generations will be fed a false narrative putting you in a bad light. IMHO spend the money on whatever you want, maybe give some to charity, whatever is left split 50-50.

 

[Which Roger]

Since there are clearly unresolved grievances driving this, instead of baking those grievances into the will, why not use your remaining years to try to fix things?

 

[Gumby]

I agree with those who say a trust is the best way to accomplish what you seek. Over the years I have heard many people say that they need to give their children equal shares in their estate. I have never agreed with that sentiment. In my view, no one deserves some of your money merely because they exist. You can choose who gets what based on any criteria you like. However, the young wife and I have no children, so I concede that may affect my outlook.

In my own case, I'm fairly certain the young wife will outlive me, so it will be her problem not mine. But if the choice is mine alone someday, I do not expect that I will split things nine ways among my nieces and nephews. I like some of them better than the others.

 

[statsman]

Having read some of the responses and re-reading the OP's thread starter, I completely missed the part about the falling out with Daughter A. If this is truly a permanently damaged relationship, I don't see a good solution. At this point, you need a solution you can live with and not ruin the rest of your life.

I do have a question, though. Are you really that set to not help out Daughter A that you also won't help out the grandchild(ren)?

 

[OldShooter]

I am pretty much MYOB on what you want to do, although it is clear that it will cause conflicts.

To implement it, as has been said, probably the right vehicle is a trust. Getting that righti is not easy, though. What if B predeceases you? What if one of both of A's children die before B does? If the trust dribbles out money to B on an annual basis, what if B is struck by a major disease and needs expensive care? What about successor trustees if the initial trustee resigns? Who can fire a trustee, if anyone? You do not want the courts to select a successor trustee.

For this kind of thing you do not need an attorney who has some trust language in his word processor. You need a grizzled old been-there-done-that attorney who has weathered many post-death disputes and problems. If you have a local charity big enough to have a development staff, they can probably recommend good specialist attorneys because they have dealt with them all.

 

[Major Tom]

I am one of 4 siblings. One of my siblings had a lifelong difficult relationship with our Dad, at times acrimonious, and at other times just difficult. When our father passed, one of my siblings was concerned that the difficult one would be left out of the will. In the case of that happening, we would have divided the money between us so that all received an equal share. We needn't have worried. As much as our Dad had differing feelings about all of us, he treated us all equally in his will.

We have no idea what happened between you and daughter A to cause such a rift. Even if we did, we wouldn't be able to make an adequate judgement as to whether your intentions are justified, as we can never walk in your shoes. However, are you absolutely, 100% sure that you want to divide your assets unequally between the two daughters? As others have said, it is nigh impossible to control your money from beyond the grave. Death is the ultimate letting go of all earthly concerns; you will have no choice in the matter. Given that you will have to let go when you pass, why not do yourself a favor, let go while you are still alive, and go for an equal split? It might actually be good for you personally. After all, it's only money. Money can make lives easier, but it doesn't create happiness, and it cannot save a person from themselves. Maybe your money isn't as important as you might think it is?

 

[The Cosmic Avenger]

The problem with calling it YOUR money is that, as soon as you die, it is no longer YOURS. It will be bequeathed to wherever you leave it to, at which point it is THEIRS. Even if you set up a trust, if I were A, I would either refuse the money, or find a way to give half to all of what I got from the trust to B by depositing it at one bank and then gifting to B from a different bank or something simple like that. (Those with more knowledge of trusts can advise whether that's possible, I can't say for sure.)

But logistics aside, consider that you can leave all your money to A, and she and her spouse can do what they like with it, but if you try to control her money and her relationship with her sister, you're more likely to simply damage your own relationship with A, even after you're gone.

 

[Aerides]

You want to leave most to B, but she has expressed she herself would be inclined to leave most of hers to A's kids (decades from now, we hope).

Do you want A and B to have a happy sibling relationship now, and after you're gone? If so, make it pretty even, but don't tie up conditions like this or it will fracture their relationship.

Outside of DH, my relationship with my sister is probably the most valuable one I have. Both of our parents are still alive, and I hope they treat us equally or logically and without actions that might jeopardize our next however-many-years years as close and friendly sisters.

 

[Pluperfect]

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.

Are you anticipating that the organization would use your actual house for housing these groups of people?

 

[mwilson]

There are two sides to every story. My parents have exhibited some outrageous behaviors towards my family during my adulthood that have made having a normal relationship with them difficult if not impossible. I know they feel like the wronged party and love telling others only their half of the story. You may (or may not!) be in a similar situation - at any rate - consider spending your efforts on reconciliation.

If you really want to continue, a trust allocating (non-equal) shares between A's children, B, and charity would be the best way to go to not seed resentment among your children and grandchildren.

 

[OldShooter]

... 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. ...

(Missed this first time)

DW's retirement hobby is serving on and chairing nonprofit boards. Usually about three at any given time. Most of these have policies on gifts and bequests and most of these specify that gifted assets be immediately sold with the proceeds rolled into the nonprofit's endowment or investment portfolio.

If you don’t want this to happen it is imperative that you contact the development officers at potential gift recipients and discuss your wishes. My guess is that in most cases they will tell you that they'd sell the house when it was received, but you may find someone who is interested in implementing your ideas.

Has the house appreciated quite a bit? You may want to discuss with your estate attorney or CPA whether you'd be better structuring the estate to include the house, where it will benefit from the basis step up. Maybe a good idea; maybe not. IANAL.

 

[pacergal]

My heart hurts for the anger you have towards your daughter A and her children (your grandchildren!).

GoodbyeYellow--I pray you will find some forgiveness for your family before you pass.

You can not dictate from the grave, as it will no longer be yours. Spend it all or give to charity. Your DD B has already told you how she felt, she wants to share, and now you want to stop that.