Trying to understand future inheritance

Heathpack

Dryer sheet wannabe
Joined
Apr 28, 2026
Messages
18
Location
Alabama
Hello, first post here. I am 60 years old and trying to figure out when I can/should retire. Part of that is trying to understand a future inheritance from my mother.

Mom is 86 years old, multiple medical problems but all managed well, lives in an assisted living facility.

She currently has:
$992,000 in a traditional (qualified) 401K, of which I am the beneficiary
$640,000 in a (non-qualified) retirement investment vehicle that I understood when it was explained to me but now am fuzzy on the details of- I think the gist is that it consists of a former annuity that got redone recently to extend to age 100 for her + a former Roth IRA. The bottom line is: this money probably won't ever be spent by her, I am the beneficiary, future distributions are not taxed, I can take this $ over my lifetime (not 10 years), and I believe this account is not subject to RMD so she is not planning to spend this down unless she lives to >95 years of age.
$110,000 in a brokerage account, this is Transfer on Death to me
$107,000 in a traditional IRA of which my niece is the beneficiary- this is the accumulated excess of her RMD
She also has a $411,000 "return of capital" provision with her CCRC of which I am the beneficiary

Mom's current expenses after SS are around $120,000/yr, 70% of which is paid by her LTC insurance until Aug 2027, after which the LTC benefit will have been fully paid out and she will start paying all of her expenses out of her traditional 401K. I expect it would take her ~8-9 years to spend that down to $0.

So I think what this boils down to is:
If my Mom passed away tomorrow, I would inherit an ~$1,000,000 401K which I would need to liquidate over 10 years and pay taxes on (this would cover most of my/our living expenses) + $640,000 that I can to liquidate over my lifetime and is not taxable + $110,000 brokerage account + $411,000 return of capital from the CCRC = ~$2.1 million
If my Mom passed away in 10 years, I would inherit $0 in the 401K + the value of the non-qualified retirement investment vehicle with 10 years of returns ~$1.2 million + $411,000 + no idea about the brokerage account but let's say $0 = ~$1.8 million.
If Mom lives >10 years, she will likely be in a nursing home and will spend down that non-qualified account, so let's guess $500,000 would be left + $411,000 = ~$900,000. No one in our family has lived to >95 years so this feels unlikely.

We (husband and I, no kids) have $985,000 in a traditional 401K, ~$150,000 in Roth 403b and 457b, $105,000 in HSAs, $100,000 in cash, house fully paid for and worth around $420,000. Husband is 65 and will enroll in Medicare this year. I am still working. Our annual expenses are around $90,000. Husband will take SS based on my earnings. If I take SS at 62, our total is $4813. If age 67, $6204. If I work to age 67, I also get a pension of $3200/mo.

We are currently putting ~$6000/month into Roth 403b/457b + $812 into HSA (will decrease in June when husband enrolls in Medicare) + contributing to a pension.

It feels like we don't have enough $ ourselves but I think my Mom's situation changes our math compared to other people's math.

Option 1: Semi retire now and work relief 1/4 time which would gross around $120,000 (I would not love this work, but its only 1/4 time). ACA insurance would be $1000/mo for me (Bronze). Medicare is around $360 for husband. Start SS at age 62. I would get a pension and vacation payout of around $53,000

Option 2: Retire at 62 and start SS then. I assume ACA insurance would be slightly more costly then. Pension and vacation payout would be $83,000

Option 3: Retire at 67 and start SS then, take the pension. Obviously we'd be very set financially if I went this route but I don't want to work that long unless I can covert my job into something close to semi-retirement from age 62-67, which is not impossible.

Questions:
1. Is retiring at 60 too soon for my scenario? I worry about not having "extra" for major health care expenses
2. If retiring at 60 is too soon, am I right that I can swing it at age 62? We expect $1.5 million in retirement accounts then, about $550,000 of which will be Roth + $150,000 in HSAs.

Spouse is a househusband and not working.
 
What are your current yearly expenses? It appears you will inherit a significant sum, but I caution to not count on it until it is a reality. I think option 1 would be a decent choice, at least for a while.

Current annual expenses are around $93,500/yr.

Do people really ignore future large inheritances? It seems like one would oversave in that situation. However, I can understand the logic of doing so, since you never really know until it happens.

If the wisdom is to disregard the inheritance, then it seems to me like option 3 should be the goal. Its the sure thing. The 1/4 time work done relatively conveniently (near to home) would be a short term opportunity, for 18 mo- 2 years. After that it would require substantial travel. Option 3 my least favorite option.
 
It's tough to say but many people have retired on far less. What kind of withdrawal rate are you planning on (how much do you need from investments to make up the differnce in spending f you're drawing SS) and what kind of return do your investments make? Have you run any of the retirement calculators like firecalc? Do you anticipate spending more in retirement on things like travel or just continuing on with the present rate of spending (adjusted for inflation of course)?
 
Once we start drawing SS, we would need an additional $3500 per month, which would be ~3% of a projected $1.5 million retirement account when I am 62. Over the past 3 years, return on investments have been 13% but I assume future returns at 7%. I honestly was paying enough attention previously to know. I did the Firecalc which works reliably (96%) with the inheritance but not without. We would spend more in retirement if we had more to spend but otherwise keep it similar. We travel 8-9 weeks a year as is. We enjoy spendy things but also simple things. We don't feel deprived when we stick to simple things.
 
What about Option 3(a), continue working until portfolio growth and/or inheritance (in-hand) makes your decision easier?

IMHO, any option that leans on your expectation of an inheritance is only acceptable if you are truly comfortable with the possibility of receiving none at all, and will be able to happily help Mom celebrate all her birthdays no matter how many more she has.
 
Last edited:
I would not count on the inheritance until mom passes. She could live another 10 years and may need a higher level of care-dementia or nursing home care-at some point which could eat through her savings completely. Also, do not include the value of your home in your assets, as you need a place to live. Live and save as if you will get no inheritance. If you get an inheritance, it will just fatten your FIRE.
 
Current annual expenses are around $93,500/yr.

Do people really ignore future large inheritances? It seems like one would oversave in that situation. However, I can understand the logic of doing so, since you never really know until it happens...
Oversaving?
Yes, I think a fair number of high income folks and folks in wealthy families are guilty of oversaving.

Maybe wealth perpetuation is a better term.

The bottom line isn't about just scraping by on the bare minimum that you can retire on...
 
If you really want to retire, i.e. really hate working and want to walk away, you need to ask yourself if you can reduce spendings as needed. I think many can and do when necessary. Also, maybe count on having $500K as your inheritance instead of the full amount.

I have been having a similar conversation with my son for several years. He works at mimimum wage blue collar job, work around 3/4 of a year in terms of hours. I have been telling him to set a goal to work until he is 50. I assure him that he will get a good size inheritance, and also in the meantime, I am gifting him each year to grow his portfolio. He should reach $1M at minimum in 10 years' time. Even at 50, I will continue to gift him each year. Finally, he asked me for a ballpark amount that I have and I told him. He is also aware that the house will go to him to be sold. I do this to assure him that there is a light at the end of the tunnel and not get down on himself. Maybe I am sharing too much, but I figure he won't bump me off. :) What I am trying to say is that it is perfectly OK to expect an inheritance to help with retirement.
 
Last edited:
What about Option 3(a), continue working until portfolio growth and/or inheritance (in-hand) makes your decision easier?

1. My job is stressful and I'd like to stop doing it
2. My spouse is 5 years older than me
3. A friend 5 years older than me who was in good health just died suddenly, another 1 year older than me was just diagnosed with ALS, I don't want to work indefinitely and then get sick and die

But of course you do what you need to do.
 
Current annual expenses are h....

Do people really ignore future large inheritances? It seems like one would oversave in that situation. However, I can understand the logic of doing so, since you never really know until it happens.

Some of don't view oversaving as a problem.

Knowing you have a sub 2% WR allows you to yawn and go back to sleep without worry/anxiety when/if financial markets break down in any substantial way.

-gauss
 
Last edited:
Some of don't view oversaving as a problem.

Knowing you have a sub 2% WR allows you to yawn and go back to sleep without worry/anxiety when/if financial markets break down in any substantial way.

-gauss

We have some younger relatives but no kids, so no one to whom we feel particularly obligated to leave money to. So it does feel like a waste to me to potentially leave $1 million on the table when we depart this world at the cost of working an additional 8 years, retiring when my spouse is 72 and barely enjoying a retirement myself.

I know there are some who like to save money just to save money because accumulating money is their jam. For me, saving money is a means to an end- which is getting to the point of not working- of course while still be responsible about it. YMMV but the "price" of oversaving for me is more years in a job that is inherently unhealthy (ie sometimes on-call 24/7 for 3 or more weeks at a time, in a life and death field, dealing with unrealistic hysterical people, every day asked to do more than is possible, under-resourced, dealing with death and tragedy on a daily basis)- hence seeing that as a problem in my specific circumstance. I am pretty emotionally tough but after 30 years in this field, I'd like to be done ASAP.
 
What is the blood relationship of your niece to your mother? Any chance she might challenne the will? I'm not a financial expert, but it seems to me that if OP chose to RE, in light of her stated concerns here, it is doable. I think a simple spend-and-travel a bit less that first year (2?) of RE would do the trick.
 
What is the blood relationship of your niece to your mother? Any chance she might challenne the will? I'm not a financial expert, but it seems to me that if OP chose to RE, in light of her stated concerns here, it is doable. I think a simple spend-and-travel a biit less that first year (2?) of RE would do the trick.

Niece is my Mom's granddaughter. Mom's will does leave 50% of everything outside of the investment accounts to my niece, however there is very little outside of the investment accounts. Even her everyday bank account is a joint account with me. Legally, nothing even needs to be said to my niece about the existence of any investment accounts unless she is a beneficiary. My Mom has set this pattern of beneficiaries for her own good reasons. Her financial planner has no intention of saying anything to my niece except "you are the beneficiary on this particular account" and is under no obligation to do anything else. I won't disclose details to her either.

We are not close, she is my brother's daughter. He died early at age 42. He was wealthy and left his widow in great financial shape (she never worked in any way, house paid off, niece's education was fully funded, etc). I don't know the specifics of whether anything was left directly to niece or everything went to his widow. My Mom wants to leave her "something" because she is my brother's daughter. The niece herself is a nice enough young adult, her mother is a witch. Could she challenge the inheritance legally? Yes- but I don't think that would go anywhere. Based on the niece herself being a decent person, could she repair the relationship with my Mom and upgrade her beneficiary status? Yes- but there has never been much evidence of inclination to do so. I have power of attorney for Mom, so I would be aware of any changes that were made (I have access to all of her accounts).
 
We have some younger relatives but no kids, so no one to whom we feel particularly obligated to leave money to. So it does feel like a waste to me to potentially leave $1 million on the table when we depart this world at the cost of working an additional 8 years, retiring when my spouse is 72 and barely enjoying a retirement myself.

I know there are some who like to save money just to save money because accumulating money is their jam. For me, saving money is a means to an end- which is getting to the point of not working- of course while still be responsible about it. YMMV but the "price" of oversaving for me is more years in a job that is inherently unhealthy (ie sometimes on-call 24/7 for 3 or more weeks at a time, in a life and death field, dealing with unrealistic hysterical people, every day asked to do more than is possible, under-resourced, dealing with death and tragedy on a daily basis)- hence seeing that as a problem in my specific circumstance. I am pretty emotionally tough but after 30 years in this field, I'd like to be done ASAP.

Totally understandable.

Thank you for providing context. It sounds that the real problem is an unhealthy relationship with work as opposed to the concept of over saving in itself.

I got out of a not so healthily employment situation in my upper 40's, and have never looked back. I also had a very close coworker (ie lunch every day together for 10 years) die while still on the job in his early 50;s

DW and I don't have kids either.

In our case, inheritances did come through so now it appears that we may have oversaved, but having the extra financial buffer now -- at least in my mind - makes it all worth while.

If you can retire now, then I'd say go for it. If on the other hand you have a chance to downsize your hours or your role then that can be very attractive also (I was able to work 60% for a year before I left. I neve missed the extra income or the w*rk. This helped me later make the transition to fully retired).

-gauss
 
Last edited:
Perhaps go with option 1.
A different way of looking at it, is if the worst financial scenario happens with your mom, what is your plan B then?
 
I quit my very high paying but very high stress job when I was 49 and went to a much lower paying but much more satisfying job. Since that change coincided with the onset of the Great Recession, it did delay our retirement, but only by about 4 years. Given the inherent uncertainty of any future inheritance, I would probably opt for your Option 1 and then reevaluate the situation when I turn 62 and become eligible to take social security.
 
I would retire independent of any inheritance projections, and simply adjust if/when anything materialized. It could well be a windfall. It could well be peanuts and a decade away. No way to account for that in your planning, so account as if it does not exist, and just enjoy your mom while she's here.
 
I wouldn't count the inheritance. It's not guaranteed. Memory care definitely costs more than assisted living. My mother outlived her parents by ~25 and ~30 years, and outlived both younger siblings. She died broke and on Medicaid, which fortunately allowed her to live in the same facility as before. They didn't have all that much and with 4 siblings I never relied on inheritance at all so I can't say I've given it that much thought, but I can't imagine relying on something that had no guarantee. Can you be certain she won't decide that most of her money shouldn't go to some charity? What if she meets someone she wants to share her life and money with? You can't legally stop her from doing either, and do you really want to if it's legit and makes her happy?

I understand the dilemma. Chances are you will get something, so I probably wouldn't factor in a buffer of savings for myself before retiring. Option 1 seems good to me but I'm not sure I'm reading that right. You would make $120K while working just 1/4 time? Or does $120K gross include other things rather than just salary?
 
Current annual expenses are around $93,500/yr.

Do people really ignore future large inheritances? It seems like one would oversave in that situation. However, I can understand the logic of doing so, since you never really know until it happens.

If the wisdom is to disregard the inheritance, then it seems to me like option 3 should be the goal. Its the sure thing. The 1/4 time work done relatively conveniently (near to home) would be a short term opportunity, for 18 mo- 2 years. After that it would require substantial travel. Option 3 my least favorite option.
I don't think it should be completely, seeing as how your mom is 86. If she was 76, that would be different. I think you are in a position to retire very soon, actually.
 
The conservative thing to do is assume 80% of your mom's money will be spent on medical and living expenses and you will only inherit 20% of it.

I would focus more time on your retirement. You didn't mention you had a taxable account. Selling stocks from a taxable brokerage account is very tax friendly - especially in the early years of your retirement. On this forum, many early retirees retire in their mid 50's and have a few years of low taxable income . where they fund the first 5-10 years of retirement by selling stock from their taxable brokerage account and doing some Roth IRA conversions, while paying very low income taxes. From a math perspective, delaying your SS until age 67 and doing Roth IRA conversions seems the way to go. You would not need to work past 62, but your would need some way to fund your retirement until age 67.
 
I would plan your retirement and spending/budget based on what you have yourselves.
Anything left after your mother dies is a bonus and you can change plans then.
As others have said, you never know what your Mom's health/living situation will be over the years.

I faced that with my last parent. I knew approximately what my folks had invested, my Dad was not in the best health after 80, but his mom lived to 100. I thought in the back of my mind, my sibs and I would inherit something, but I definitely did not include any sum in our retirement plans.
My Dad lived to 86, I would give all the inherited money back to have been able to have him with us a few more years.
 
Back
Top Bottom