How to structure unusual will?

About ten years ago when my parents were doing estate planning, they told me that they didn’t want to leave anything to my brother and his wife because they would likely waste it. Instead, they wrote their will to skip my generation (which is just me and my brother) and distribute things evenly to their four grandchildren (two are brother’s kids, two are mine).

That was fine with me because 1) it’s their money/their decision and 2) DH and I are doing well, so I don’t begrudge any inheritance going to my daughters. We aren’t talking huge amounts of money, maybe about $100K to each heir at the time. It may be more, or less, by now. DH & I are much better off financially than my brother, and my DD’s are earning much more than their cousins. $100K would certainly help either of my girls at this stage of their life; it would be life-changing for their cousins.

Recently my aunt asked me what I thought of my parents’ plans for their estate. I told her that as I understood, it was going equally to the grandkids. She indicated that was not the case but wouldn’t fill me in. So maybe things have changed. Still not my business. But deep down I know I will be disappointed if the will has changed to give everything to my brother or his kids, and my girls get nothing. (I doubt that’s the case).

I agree that parents can do as they please with their money and don't have any obligation to leave it to their kids.

I am also a huge proponent of having parents communicate their intentions to their kids prior to their demise---let the kids know what they intend to do with their money and explaining their reasoning (if they so choose), so that there are no surprises when they pass. This way, parents can deal with any consequences and maybe address/resolve (if possible) any conflicts among kids while they are still alive. This would lessen the chances of their kids harboring resentment or turning on each other upon their passing because of any perceived inequities in inheritance.
 
It's a lot easier to control where your money goes when you're still alive than hoping a trust will hold firm. If you feel strongly that one child should get a larger amount (or all of it) then start giving them money now.
 
There is no obligation on my part, it is a desire to leave money to my children, however, we certainly do not deny ourselves anything in retirement in order to "have something left".
I want to make sure we have the money to fund until end of life, but have no problem telling the kids "we're spending your inheritance" when we do something fun. They just smile and say "Good for you!"
 
It's a lot easier to control where your money goes when you're still alive than hoping a trust will hold firm. ...
Here’s a little more on trusts and courts: As I mentioned, DW retired as a megabank SVP in Investments and Trusts. Trusts were her life for 20-30 years. At any given time, she and her troops were probably administering 100+ trusts. All of the probate judges knew her by name. She or one of her troops typically appeared for one of two reasons:

First, initiated by the bank, the ask the court to fix problems with a trust. Maybe it was internally inconsistent, circumstances had changed drastically, like the principal beneficiary had died and the trust had no provisions for this, etc. Typically the bank would make a recommendation and the court would ratify it.

Second, initiated by a greedy beneficiary. Sonny said Grandma told him he could buy a Ferrari and the bank/trustee refuses to pay, Grandma is in a nursing home in a private room and the beneficiaries want her moved to a (cheaper) double room or to a cheaper nursing home. Divorced spouse asserting a claim on ex-hubby's trust assets. And so forth. DW used to joke that grantor dad or grandpa knew that there would be problems and and that's why he set up a good trust to protect the assets. In decades, DW never lost a case like this. In her world of professionally-drafted trusts and professional management, trusts just didn't get "broken." It was not a risk.

YMMV of course, but it wouldn't be something that I or DW would worry about.
 
Last edited:
I know of a situation similar to yours. DF actually tried to leave an equal share among not so close siblings. He sold property before passing to make it all easier.


Siblings are suing anyway. And as the court doesn't know the history, they can just deal with "facts" and the case goes to court. This takes a lot of time and $ from those that didn't do anything wrong.


So what ever you do, you better document everything and do your best to make it as ironclad as possible. At the end of the day, if the acrimony is felt on both sides, it likely won't matter what you do.


Which leaves you the option of giving what you can now and leaving very little to fight over.


cd : O)
 
OP here. Thanks all for your insights and perspectives.

I do not want to, nor can I, explain the causes in ways that satisfy all viewpoints. Of course there are viewpoints, and there are facts. The facts/data support that A has clearly indicated, through repeated action (actually inaction, mixed with some action), that we are to expect nothing from her. However, she has happily accepted things from us, both material and not, in the very recent past (think 2023), while continuing her policy, and it is after many repeats of the same experience that my wife and I have agreed that, if we can expect nothing, then we are obliged for nothing.

It is possible that things could change, but that change will now need to come from the other side, as our repeated and sincere efforts have been met with negative and we can fairly consider them exhausted. But I do want to say it is not A herself that is the real problem. That relationship can be patched (it may take effort, which we have no problem with) if her spouse was not the way he is, so I want to disabuse y'all of the notion that I am so acrimonious toward the fruit of my loins, etc.
That's all I want to say on that matter.

As another poster noted, you could set up a trust to pay income to daughter A but also if she dies the trust pays only her progeny.

Her widower gets bupkis, zilch, nada.

Not cheap but it will ensure he doesn't get his hands on her share of the trust, which, again, probably should include proceeds of the house sale after your demise.
 
Last edited:
In decades, DW never lost a case like this. In her world of professionally-drafted trusts and professional management, trusts just didn't get "broken." It was not a risk.

+100 Lordy, I've seen attempts to break/amend a trust first-hand. People who spent lots of money on lawyers and failed.
 
+100 Lordy, I've seen attempts to break/amend a trust first-hand. People who spent lots of money on lawyers and failed.
Yes, and the sad thing is that the trust pays all of the expenses to defend, penalizing the legitimate beneficiaries. I don't think the bank was particularly aggressive but IIRC back when she was working they billed her time at $150/hour. That's in addition to the legal beagles. Certainly it's more now.

All the more reason to hire an expert who can draft something that is most likely to be bulletproof.
 
OP again... ok, I will (sort of) bend my own words here, to close the loop on some communication that I think may have been left unsaid. Sorry for length.

First, I agree with the many who say there is no "owing" to adult children. The exception might be if you neglected them as kids and as a result, they ended up holding the short stick in life.

In our case however, DW and I, both with advanced degrees (I say this to underscore that we value education), gave a lot of time to both kids, whether for school, play, or other things. Even A still admits this, notwithstanding the issues we are having. Don't want to oversell this point, but we made our sacrifices, and plenty of them, early and often. For both kids. We continued to help them in early adulthood, with college, weddings, financial advice, job searches, moving, and a host of other things. Taught them fiscal responsibility and instilled the value of not living beyond their means, which thankfully seems to have stuck. Obligations done, as far as I can tell.

So: We owe NOTHING but love, and love (which can be manifested in many ways, including monetary) is in the end based on reciprocation. If anyone thinks they are capable of true love without expectations, or love in the face of shabby treatment, I'd say they need a shot of truth serum. This is simply how the human mind is, and maybe some elevated minds (Dalai Lama, Gandhi, etc) may transcend that, I don't know. Rest of us, I call BS.

To continue the story: Both kids ended up with advanced STEM degrees and related careers, and A is doing particularly well, as is her spouse, who did the same (it's how they met). DD B less so, but is no slouch and has a good income by any standard, as does her spouse (they also met in school, just at a younger age).

To address the grandchild issue, we have little to no emotions tied up in this child (and probably future kids) for one simple reason: A's spouse has manipulated/managed our contact with the child to seemingly ensure we are not too involved in anything important, beginning with his birth (his mom was the one attending, but we are the new mother's parents and were told to "come a few weeks later", despite this being our first grandchild and the other side's seventh), important life events like birthdays, religious ceremonies, etc. We have been held at arm's length or worse, while his family (even extended family) gets ringside seats to everything. After the birth (really, weeks after the birth), we have not seen the child for almost two years, only recently doing so, and briefly at that. Not, I repeat NOT, because we have wanted it this way. He has also managed our relationship with our daughter, to the extent of restricting our contact with her to only those times that he is present. So we have not felt involved in the child's life, through no doing of our own, and have been kept at arms length from our daughter as well. I could go on. How then is love/affection supposed to appear? Just from genealogy?

On the subject of Blow That Dough, although I have not visited that thread yet but intend to do so, mostly out of curiosity, DW and I think that could expose us to penury in later years, and the problems that accompany it. Dunno what inside info you guys have on this subject, but we have no idea how long we'll live. So our approach has always been to save, save, save... so much so that we don't even know how to spend much money any more. Just the other day we were bemoaning the fact that our favorite pizza place raised their prices, after 3 years, by $2... for the entire pie. Logically, this is just plain stupid, and yet. Some will call this sad, I just say it is what it is and I know many retired/older people have a similar thing going on.
 
Last edited:
You literally just typed that your SIL won't let your daughter see her parents without him being present.



Can you comprehend that your reaction here is exactly what SIL was trying to achieve?Life is long, people and situations can and do change. Your grandchild is a completely innocent pawn in this situation.
 
Agreed. The adult daughter being controlled to this extent seems like a major red flag on two fronts: The husband being so extreme, and the daughter tolerating this behavior.


Roger I don't know your experience with abusive situations but using the world tolerate isn't really appropriate.
 
I’ll just say it seems to me that the will issue is trivial compared to the bigger issues you are raising. Hope you find some solutions.
 
I fully understand OP's position & feelings. My youngest son tried to kill his mother (my ex-wife), failed, was caught, & has been in under mandated mental care, in another state. When I traveled to see him, he asked me for a hug, & then tried to kill me with a shiv! That was my last contact with him, 20+ years ago, as he has continued to turn down any financial help I tried to give him, over distance. I consider that as sufficient reason to omit him from our will.
 
... To address the grandchild issue, we have little to no emotions tied up in this child (and probably future kids) for one simple reason: A's spouse has manipulated/managed our contact with the child to seemingly ensure we are not too involved in anything important, beginning with his birth (his mom was the one attending, but we are the new mother's parents and were told to "come a few weeks later", despite this being our first grandchild and the other side's seventh), important life events like birthdays, religious ceremonies, etc. We have been held at arm's length or worse, while his family (even extended family) gets ringside seats to everything. After the birth (really, weeks after the birth), we have not seen the child for almost two years, only recently doing so, and briefly at that. Not, I repeat NOT, because we have wanted it this way. He has also managed our relationship with our daughter, to the extent of restricting our contact with her to only those times that he is present. So we have not felt involved in the child's life, through no doing of our own, and have been kept at arms length from our daughter as well. ....

Then I have a BTD idea for you. Rent or buy the house next door to DD A and SIL and say that you are doing it because now that you are retired and have more time for family that you want to be able to see DGS, DD A and SIL more often. It's going to be much harder for SIL to stiff-arm you if you are living next door.
 
Controlling behavior like this, isolating a partner from their family, is a big red flashing warning sign and would cause me to fear for my daughter's safety.

I have a BTD idea for you.... I'll send you Cousin Vedos info for some private counseling for them :angel:
 
I have a BTD idea for you.... I'll send you Cousin Vedos info for some private counseling for them :angel:

The potential for domestic violence is no laughing matter.
 
I am very sorry if the estrangement occurred only since marriage of A and you +DW gave no reason for it. One of my friends experienced something similar.
I'd recommend to take the high road, enjoy what you and DW have as long as you can and leave the rest 50:50 to the sisters.
 
Controlling behavior like this, isolating a partner from their family, is a big red flashing warning sign and would cause me to fear for my daughter's safety.

https://www.thehotline.org/identify-abuse/domestic-abuse-warning-signs/

Absolutely. OP, reading what you wrote made my spidey sense tingle.
As a public health RN of 40 years, I spent so much time working with DV victims, and child abuse cases, along with victims huge amount of denial in what was happening, which is all part of the problem, that and the financial isolation, the DV victims are so financially reliant on their abuser.

I am so sorry you and your DW have been left out of your DD and DGK lives, but please stay on the sidelines if you can.
Not saying there is abuse involved, but it sounds like a potential.
 
Stepfather sat us 3 down and stated his intentions, estate to be split 4 ways, charity and each kid. But when the time came the will had changed to a trust "all of which may be spent for the care and concern of my wife even if the children get nothing". And by the way 2 of the kids get nothing anyway, the other can have what she has not spent, if there is any.
 
Last edited:
Stepfather sat us 3 down and stated his intentions, estate to be split 4 ways, charity and each kid. But when the time came the will had changed to a trust "all of which may be spent for the care and concern of my wife even if the children get nothing". And by the way 2 of the kids get nothing anyway, the other can have what she has not spent, if there is any.

I think that is common... primary objective is to have the surviving spouse supported for the rest of their life, and then kids if there is anything left.
 
That's the way ours is written. The surviving spouse has control of all the money and it is only on the second death that the bequests happen and the testamentary trusts are created. This seems to be pretty standard; our first attorney wrote the original documents but subsequently retired and our current attorney is keeping the same structure.
 
I think that is common... primary objective is to have the surviving spouse supported for the rest of their life, and then kids if there is anything left.

I did not list all the wording from the letter, but this was written to ensure she can move money out of his trust for the benefit of her own children from her prior marriage (who had a trust anyway).

I would imagine asset transfer started the day after he was buried. There is no danger she could spend all the money at her age unless she set it on fire in the back yard.

At any rate, it felt odd even to the kid who will still, someday, get what is left because we all had been treated "equally" all our lives then suddenly 2 out of 3 didn't exist with no explanation. It did include a time period for us to contest the will, we did not try.

If the sisters are close, it will make them feel odd too.

I should mention this lady is odd she did not want his family listed in the obit which really no one reads anyway. Only *her* family. I guess the first 70 years of his life did not exist. I found it odd he left nothing to the children of the preferred child either as he was a very kind man.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom