Wealth does not pass three generations

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj.mask This isn’t always a middle finger. Many times this is advised by the lawyer to reduce the ability of the niece to sue the estate. By giving them something ($1) it is clear they were not accidentally omitted.

Exactly! Along with a clause that states the estate will sue anyone who contests the will/trust and making it clear (sometimes in a three page, typewritten diatribe) as to the reason of the omission. Been there but not directed at me.

But I would say that getting one dollar when your siblings and cousins get a few million is, quite indeed, 'the middle finger'.

[FIREchief]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko Exactly! Along with a clause that states the estate will sue anyone who contests the will/trust and making it clear (sometimes in a three page, typewritten diatribe) as to the reason of the omission. Been there but not directed at me. But I would say that getting one dollar when your siblings and cousins get a few million is, quite indeed, 'the middle finger'.

I believe that you may be referring to a clause that zeros out the inheritance of any beneficiary who challenges the will/trust. I've more typically seen this manifest itself as a nominal sum (i.e. not $1, but maybe $10,000) that is thought to be sufficient to incentivize the person to just take the money and run.

[athena53]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj.mask This isn’t always a middle finger. Many times this is advised by the lawyer to reduce the ability of the niece to sue the estate. By giving them something ($1) it is clear they were not accidentally omitted.

One lawyer in Stark County, Ohio, back in the days when dimes were pure silver, left a son he didn't like 30 dimes. Yeah, 30 pieces of silver.

A story from a proud Mom of the 4th generation: granddaughter wants an American Girl ice cream truck playset for Christmas. They found one for $100 at Target. I thought the request was for me to get it. No- DS and DDL had a discussion and decided that $100 was too much to spend on a kid's toy and DDIL found a used one on-line with only a few (out of 80+) pieces missing for $68 in my area. Could I meet the seller and pay for it and they'll pay me back? Granddaughter is happy with that and I now they're good for the money.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree!

[scrabbler1]

I remember back in mid-2008 when my brother, my dad, and I hired a lawyer to put together some estate documents for my dad including POA, HCP, an IAMT, and a will. While I was still working, my ER plans were taking shape quickly. In the will was some boilerplate language about how a beneficiary may be denied his share of the estate if he is unemployed or some deadbeat. Even though I doubt my brother would try to invoke that clause in the will, I was a little concerned that my ER-ness could be used against me. I was able to get that paragraph struck out of the will without any problems.

[FIREchief]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrabbler1 In the will was some boilerplate language about how a beneficiary may be denied his share of the estate if he is unemployed or some deadbeat.

There is absolutely no way that something like this would be "boilerplate." If this is in fact true(?!), it would be somebody's idea of a clever way to "help" an heir be a better person, even though rich uncle moneybags was being eaten by worms.... We do in fact live in a very strange world.

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREchief There is absolutely no way that something like this would be "boilerplate." If this is in fact true(?!), it would be somebody's idea of a clever way to "help" an heir be a better person, even though rich uncle moneybags was being eaten by worms.... We do in fact live in a very strange world.

Boilerplate or no, I've seen this a few times. That's how a lot of art galleries (open by appointment only) around here stay up and running. Again, these are trusts with regular distributions, not wills.

I actually know a guy who's $500K+ annual distribution depends upon him "being involved in some sort of business venture". i.e. No sitting on a beach in Bali for you!

As a result every year he has some sort of fake business he's either starting or trying to get off the ground. They all fail--and never were intended to fly--but he gets paid as a result; he just needs to show effort.

One year he bought a beat up old restaurant with "plans" to renovate and re-open...he banged a few nails, moved out a lot of junk and then sold it two years later, never opened it.

[ckelly78z]

Among my family, I will most likely be the one with the most assets to disperse due to a constant effort to expand my holdings

. My grandmother on my Mom's side lived her retired life SS check, to SS check, and lived a very frugal lifestyle with no assets after assisted living costs.

My grandmother on my Dad's side lived well, had money to do whatever, but burned it all up on assisted living.

My parents live well, but frugally, but do have AL insurance. My brother and I will most likely expect material items such as cars/tractors/tools, and not alot of $$.

My Inlaws sometimes spend foolishly, but always seem to have enough for whatever. My wife and her brother will most likely get material items as well with little $$ after assisted living costs.

[scrabbler1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREchief There is absolutely no way that something like this would be "boilerplate." If this is in fact true(?!), it would be somebody's idea of a clever way to "help" an heir be a better person, even though rich uncle moneybags was being eaten by worms.... We do in fact live in a very strange world.

The passage in question, shown below, was part of the IAMT (Trust) documents regarding the beneficiaries of the Trust.

"...or is not employed in a position that would be expected of someone with his or her education or abilities, taking into consideration not only actual education but the means to seek additional education using the income or principal of the Trust Estate."

I asked to have it removed. It was part of the standard language the lawyer gave us to review. It was part of a larger section titled, "Special Circumstances" and it spelled out a list of unusual circumstances where the assets of the Trust may be withheld from a beneficiary.

[socca]

In my own family, I'm a member of "Generation 3". Later this year I will have the pleasure of informing other members of Generation 3 that they are sadly mistaken if they think that they will be able to strut around like rich folks based on family resources alone, primarily because there will be quite a few greedy Generation 3 hands reaching into the pot (a phenomenon already mentioned by other folks in this thread). Generation 4 looks to be far less numerous (although not quite the impressive reduction reported by NW-Bound). The family biz is rather high-maintenance, and it's not clear that Generation 4 will be able to successfully manage it. Generation 4 may be forced to liquidate income-generating assets to the maximum extent possible, so not much may survive for Generation 5 (if there is one). Anyway, this isn't my problem.

[FIREchief]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrabbler1 The passage in question, shown below, was part of the IAMT (Trust) documents regarding the beneficiaries of the Trust. "...or is not employed in a position that would be expected of someone with his or her education or abilities, taking into consideration not only actual education but the means to seek additional education using the income or principal of the Trust Estate." I asked to have it removed. It was part of the standard language the lawyer gave us to review. It was part of a larger section titled, "Special Circumstances" and it spelled out a list of unusual circumstances where the assets of the Trust may be withheld from a beneficiary.

Wow. Thanks for posting that! That right there is some scary stuff. Of course it is fraught with problems. I'm guessing that lawyer saved a few pennies by subscribing to the "low cost" documents provider. To the original point, I think my exception to the reference to "boilerplate," was that I was interpreting it in the sense that "boilerplate" = typical, usual, standard language.

So who decides if an heir meets the employment criteria. If big brother is the trustee and also an heir, can he whack little brother for working at Starbucks and directly increase his share of the benefits?