There's just something about death and greed and money and long-buried resentment that bubbles to the surface when there's any substantial inheritance. It tears families apart. People lie and steal and cheat.
One thing I have noticed, which I wonder if any of you can back me up on, is that the more... Mustachian, for lack of a better word, the people who inherit are, the less drama there is. I don't precisely know why that is, but it's a consistent pattern I've noticed in these stories— maybe it's because Mustachian people are less likely to obnoxiously rely on and feel entitled to an inheritance because after all, most of us have projections and plans and countdowns until FIRE, and there's such a strong vein of individualism and self-sufficiency in Mustachianism— we know we can do this on our own, so we can concentrate on the things that matter more to us than money like quality of life and beloved family.
But I don't know, really. I'm not certain about any of my logic, because I just don't understand at the most basic level. It's probably why I find the subject so fascinating. I don't have much close family, and I just can't imagine fighting with any of them over money or things.
Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago. She's 97. Still living. AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt. That uncle? Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.Stories like that are fantastic.
Anyway, my grandfather died in his 80's (17 years ago), and at that point, he'd been married to his second wife for more than 15 years. After the funeral, my uncle called my mom (the executor) and wanted to know WHEN HE WAS GETTING HIS MONEY BECAUSE HE'S WAITED HIS WHOLE LIFE FOR HIS MONEY (probably $250k). My grandpa was not even buried yet.
Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago. She's 97. Still living. AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt. That uncle? Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.Stories like that are fantastic.
In 1965, an elderly French woman of 90 years with no heirs and a smoking habit, entered a contract with her cunning 47 year old attorney. She sells him her apartment in exchange for life annuity payments. The elderly lady continues to live, eventually outliving him and continuing to receive payments from the deceased attorney's wife, as per the contract. She dies in 1997 at the age of 122 years, the longest human lifespan ever recorded. The attorney and his wife ended up paying more than twice the apartment's value to her over 3 decades.
She was a kickass lady too. She only stopped riding her bicycle after hitting 3 digits, and lived on her own until 110.
People really shouldn't bank on others dying.
My cousin tells me that when my paternal grandmother died, there was a polite but determined dispute between my mother and my uncle as to who got the sitting room curtains (the red velvet winter ones), which was resolved when they discovered that each of them had a use in mind for just one of the curtains.
Other than that I am afraid that my family seems to have been boringly correct about inheritances on all known occasions.
A mother dies and her three children will inherit equally.
One, the eldest by 10 years, has never been happy with her younger sisters because they ruined her single child upbringing (or something like that; who knows?).
When the body is cremated, the eldest takes the ashes and uses a scale to determine exactly how much each sister gets. After taking her "portion" of the ashes, she gives back to her younger sisters the remainder of the ashes in a plastic bag.
Eldest sister is in her 80s and continues to be angry to this day, despite repeated attempts at communication.
I've been watching a fictional treatment of inheritance drama, a Danish tv series called The Legacy. it's as juicy as can be, with a mother figure dying suddenly with important assets, multiple,children including her illigitimate daughter, varying passionate ideas about outcome of the estate, and lots of angst.
Highly recommended.
Happened to a former co-worker. She married at around age 28 to a guy who was about 40. Her 1st marriage, his 2nd. He had an ex-wife and 2 kids.
About a year into their marriage she gives birth to a baby girl, but not long after that, her husband dies of a heart attack.
Turns out he had not changed his beneficiary information, so yes, the ex-wife and kids got everything. They took everything too, including his personal property from the house.
Co-worker only received Social Security widow and survivor benefits and she had to go back home and live with her parents.
Moral: please update your paperwork!
Posting to follow! So much juicy drama.
Happened to a former co-worker. She married at around age 28 to a guy who was about 40. Her 1st marriage, his 2nd. He had an ex-wife and 2 kids.
About a year into their marriage she gives birth to a baby girl, but not long after that, her husband dies of a heart attack.
Turns out he had not changed his beneficiary information, so yes, the ex-wife and kids got everything. They took everything too, including his personal property from the house.
Co-worker only received Social Security widow and survivor benefits and she had to go back home and live with her parents.
Moral: please update your paperwork!
I used to work in a retiree call center and can't tell you how many times I saw this. Paperwork was filled out years (sometimes decades ago), retiree dies and is on second/or third wife but paperwork still leaves everything to wife number one. Those were horrible, horrible calls.
My cousin tells me that when my paternal grandmother died, there was a polite but determined dispute between my mother and my uncle as to who got the sitting room curtains (the red velvet winter ones), which was resolved when they discovered that each of them had a use in mind for just one of the curtains.
Posting to follow! So much juicy drama.
Just press the "Notify" button at the bottom of the page... :)
Posting to follow! So much juicy drama.
Just press the "Notify" button at the bottom of the page... :)
Alas, I'm using the stripped-down WAP version of the forum to make it easier to read on my smartphone. The Notify button doesn't show up :)
...
My sisters and I have sworn to never let our relationship deteriorate to that point.
These people who think they are entitled to property or money from their living relatives - like the uncle that backs up a trailer and cleans out his living mother's house - BLOWS my mind!I know, right? Crazy.
Or the people who think they are due a "pre-inheritance".
Keep the stories coming. This has been quite the education.
When my maternal grandparents (which had some money) died - I got nothing. No big deal. It was a messy situation. I prefer my independence over participating in the mess that it became.
When my paternal grandfather died (GM still alive) I got a few of his tools - among them his workbench that he built before I was born and some of his father's hand tools. They mean more to me than any tool at the big box hardware store.
Mom dies and leaves rough a million to be divided three ways to me, and a half- brother and sister. I'm the executor. The half sister is about as sorry of an excuse for a human as it gets, drugs, alcohol addiction, felony manslaughter DUI, been leaching off mom and dad for decades, lives at home for free, allergic to engaging in productive employment, etc ...............and that's in the plus column.
Lucky enough, at the time of mom's passing, sis is in the middle of hip surgery and will be in rehab. for many weeks. Sis decides to boycott the funeral, for some psycho. reason that doesn't really matter to rational folks. Her next move is to inform the estate that she will continue to occupy the family homestead, and fully expects to have the home titled in her name. Well this is a bit problematic for a few reasons, including the fact that it violates the will, and she is on Medicaid, SSD, and countless other programs that have asset limitations. The will directs me to liquidate everything and divide it equally, with sis's portion going to a blind trust to prevent it from being seized by various agencies she is milking. She lawyers up, and I get a call from a junior attorney with Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. He attempts to be mildly intimidating, but I just can't cower all that well, particularly since he is FOS, and awaiting his first chin whisker. I ask Opie if he has done any due diligence on his client? He asks me to be more specific? I ask if it's pro bono, or does he suffer from delusions of being compensated for his work? He takes the fifth, but asks what I'm getting at. I then tell him that I can produce a large box of mail, bills, correspondence from her last council, etc........ that have piled, unopened, from the last six months or so. I explain that she only opens mail from the court system, since she greatly fears returning to jail. Other than that, it doesn't get opened or paid. The conversation ended pretty quickly after that, an the firm decided that it was a good client to drop.
Next I get a call from a county social worker, who decides he is another wannabee lawyer. This guy is going on about how I am in danger of violating her rights to housing, and heading down a dangerous path. He too is attempting to be a hard ass, like he is some kind of a rouge street cop. I then recommended that he concentrate his efforts on keeping his client out of jail, by making sure she was keeping up with the requirements of her parole. I also suggested he might want to take a look at the ongoing elder abuse investigation , as a result of her mother's coworkers and friends concern over the abuse taking place in the home that she shared with her mother. He drops the tough guy routine and listens to the reality that there is no way in hell that she will be heading back to her old "home", for many reasons. In the end I flipped the home, bumping the value up by $40K with three weeks and $7K invested. It sells quick and that drama is over.
All things considered, it was a long ugly process, but the house was sold and she got exactly what she was entitled to. She pulled a lot of other totally F-ed up stuff while mom was dying, and tried a whole bunch more until the estate settled. In the end she had a rude awaking, since her entitlement delusions had her convinced that she was going to be handed absolutely everything including a house and enough money to live happily ever after.
Mom left her and my brother $25K each. She told me many times, "They don't deserve anything, but if I don't give them something they'll never leave you alone."
My Dad died very suddenly 30 years ago. My older sister and her husband lived nearby and drove Mom around to the mortuary and cemetery to make the arrangements while I stayed home to field the phone. (I was 20 and in college.)
When they returned home, sister and BIL caught me alone and asked, "Does Mom have any money?"
I knew my parents frugal ways as well as I knew their spendthrift ways so I answered evasively, "I don't know. Why?"
"Well, you know, Mom's so upset that we've paid for everything today but we don't know if Mom has any money to pay us back."
"I don't know. You'll have to ask her."
Once they left, I told Mom about the exchange. She silently got up and brought back her checkbook, where she--as always--had meticulously recorded every expense that she had paid that day.
I have no idea what they thought they might get or why.
They moved out of state several years later and didn't bother to visit Mom for 16 years. When she finally did visit, my sister took the opportunity to ask my Mom who was going to get the house. Mom told her that she was leaving it to me since I was the only one who had been there for her. Sister stormed out of the house and didn't return, not even for Mom's funeral last year.
Mom left her and my brother $25K each. She told me many times, "They don't deserve anything, but if I don't give them something they'll never leave you alone."
Right after the cashier's check cleared, BIL posted a picture of his shiny new pickup on his Facebook page.
She knew them very well indeed.
Mom left her and my brother $25K each. She told me many times, "They don't deserve anything, but if I don't give them something they'll never leave you alone."
I'm sorry for your loss, your mother sounds like an amazing person. She also sounds wise, had she cut your sister out, it's possible she could have contested the will and caused mischief.
She was. I'm so grateful that she made the decisions--and took the legal actions--that she did.My Dad died very suddenly 30 years ago. My older sister and her husband lived nearby and drove Mom around to the mortuary and cemetery to make the arrangements while I stayed home to field the phone. (I was 20 and in college.)
When they returned home, sister and BIL caught me alone and asked, "Does Mom have any money?"
I knew my parents frugal ways as well as I knew their spendthrift ways so I answered evasively, "I don't know. Why?"
"Well, you know, Mom's so upset that we've paid for everything today but we don't know if Mom has any money to pay us back."
"I don't know. You'll have to ask her."
Once they left, I told Mom about the exchange. She silently got up and brought back her checkbook, where she--as always--had meticulously recorded every expense that she had paid that day.
I have no idea what they thought they might get or why.
They moved out of state several years later and didn't bother to visit Mom for 16 years. When she finally did visit, my sister took the opportunity to ask my Mom who was going to get the house. Mom told her that she was leaving it to me since I was the only one who had been there for her. Sister stormed out of the house and didn't return, not even for Mom's funeral last year.
Mom left her and my brother $25K each. She told me many times, "They don't deserve anything, but if I don't give them something they'll never leave you alone."
Right after the cashier's check cleared, BIL posted a picture of his shiny new pickup on his Facebook page.
She knew them very well indeed.
In this thread of horribly sad stories, I'm glad that, at least, your mom was smart.
I got nothing. my parents got nothing.
It was worth it.
On a lighter note... and just because I like telling this story... my mom and her sisters all met at and stayed at grandpa's house the week prior to the funeral. My family is full of snark. Full. The day after they all arrived, there was a knock at the door. My mother opened to a guy in a UPS uniform, who very awkwardly asked if someone in the home had just passed away. My mother, in her best form, replied, "Yes. Are you here for the body?" It took a minute for the aunts to stop laughing uncontrollably... Turns out that the UPS guy was the bishop for my grandpa's LDS ward. My mom still feels kind of bad about it. :)
The happy ending is the other three children said "F That" and agreed to split his assets 4-ways.
Had a very quirky uncle with four children and would routinely rewrite his will to remove a child based on some real or perceived slight. Happened over and over.
He passed away very unexpectedly and when they read his most recent will, he had written out his oldest child, who has been wheelchair bound for over 30 years and is an absolute sweetheart. She was flabbergasted and had no idea why.
The happy ending is the other three children said "F That" and agreed to split his assets 4-ways.
he wanted to be a wizard and ninja when he grew up and now teaches magic and karate.
My MIL is elderly and has a chronic medical condition, which makes it very likely she will die within a year or two. She also has some dementia She is now living with BIL, one of several sons. My dh is set up in her trust to be the executor, and the trust is written to divide the estate equally between the sons. We have been working to clear out her house in preparation for putting it on the market, because she cannot live alone at this point.
BIL calls us up the other day. His son (one of MIL's many grandchildren) would like to buy MIL's house. There is one small problem. Son is very unlikely to qualify for sufficient mortgage to pay the fair market value on the house. BIL has a brilliant idea. The sale should be an owner finance, never mind that the owner is likely to be dead within two years. MIL may also need funds for her care as her situation deteriorates.
Having no interest in holding a mortgage for my nephew for many years to come, dh tells BIL this is a non-starter. Hectoring ensues. BIL keeps insisting that this is a brilliant way to keep the wealth within the family by avoiding listing fees. Yeah, keep the wealth within HIS family, while we take on the risk of nephew who isn't qualified for the mortgage.
I mentioned to my brother that if I have any money at the time of my death, I will be leaving it to charity. He became furious - FURIOUS - that I would give it to strangers over his children.
Now I really have to get a decent will made. My current one leaves all my belongings to my sister, assuming she would split it up between others as appropriate. Sister has excellent judgement and no need for my money. I don't want to leave her with problems and animosity and headaches.
Posting to follow. Not for the first time, I'm glad my family's not wealthy.
My MIL is elderly and has a chronic medical condition, which makes it very likely she will die within a year or two. She also has some dementia She is now living with BIL, one of several sons. My dh is set up in her trust to be the executor, and the trust is written to divide the estate equally between the sons. We have been working to clear out her house in preparation for putting it on the market, because she cannot live alone at this point.
BIL calls us up the other day. His son (one of MIL's many grandchildren) would like to buy MIL's house. There is one small problem. Son is very unlikely to qualify for sufficient mortgage to pay the fair market value on the house. BIL has a brilliant idea. The sale should be an owner finance, never mind that the owner is likely to be dead within two years. MIL may also need funds for her care as her situation deteriorates.
Having no interest in holding a mortgage for my nephew for many years to come, dh tells BIL this is a non-starter. Hectoring ensues. BIL keeps insisting that this is a brilliant way to keep the wealth within the family by avoiding listing fees. Yeah, keep the wealth within HIS family, while we take on the risk of nephew who isn't qualified for the mortgage.
Why don't you tell your BIL you have an even more brilliant idea - he can buy his siblings out (if there is any other inheritance money over and above the house, he can use that money) and then he can owner-finance his son's purchase (since he feels his son is a worthwhile risk). That way he can keep the wealth in his family.
Win-win.
We did suggest exactly that. Alternatively, BIL could co-sign a loan for his son and thus assume the risk of default for himself. BIL didn't seem nearly as interested.
My family is still wading through a well intentioned but poorly thought out will from my grandparents on my mom's side.
They owned three properties. Two cattle ranches, and the house they lived in. Two siblings lived on the separate cattle ranches, and the third (my mom) eventually moved into the grandparents former house.
Unfortunately, my grandparents divided ownership of each property 1/3 to each sibling. So every sibling is now living on a property that is jointly owned by their two siblings. In addition, the cattle ranches are minor income-producing assets. So the people living on and working the ranches have some undefined obligation (in my passive aggressive family) to share their earned ranch income with siblings that aren't working on the ranch.
After a few years and a semi-successful business deal between the siblings, they ended up suing each other and don't talk to each other anymore. Some are paying rents to others based on old rental deals, and others have defaulted on their mortgage obligations of the properties out of spite, knowing the others will pay the bank instead of letting the property fall into default.
We did suggest exactly that. Alternatively, BIL could co-sign a loan for his son and thus assume the risk of default for himself. BIL didn't seem nearly as interested.LOL - that's exactly what I thought would happen.
One within my own family.
In about 2007 my family discovered that my great great grandparents owned a rather large plot of land in the 'old country'. All the land on either side is full developed valuable land. We found out because a less than legitimate firm shall we say converted the lands use to urban and tried to start building on it when a distant local relative noticed. This was then valued at tens of millions and made everyone rather happy and so paperwork sorting to formalise things to pay back taxes etc with a view of a sale. This was complicated by large numbers of heirs (catholic family) depending on which branch of the tree. But all sorted. Then. Financial Crash. Old Country did badly. Very badly. Land dropped in value massively although still with millions, small digits. But, a squatter appeared. One of the more local family tried to get him removed but he produced an old document which stated his family has the right to farm the land. No court case has yet been started. Documents legitimacy unknown, although either way apparently.
Why not? Well most of the family are poor/lower middle income. So any costs really cut into budgets. Some don't even want to pay their share of the tax on the land (which is like, really tiny). So it is all in a very slowly progressing limbo land. Though with no rush as prices are no where near '08 levels. How many had 'counted' on the larger sum I don't know. I stay out off all of it.
Further complicated by heirs starting to die off meaning their descendants and thus even more people are involved.
I find this all rather amusing as do my parents. They are the only 'well off' couple of the family in terms of their share would mean more spendypants holidays and maybe being able to set myself and sibling up well.
For me it doesn't really matter if it ever gets resolved. Sure I could FIRE faster but eh no biggie, looking at less than ten years total of working anyway.
Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago. She's 97. Still living. AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt. That uncle? Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.Stories like that are fantastic.
In 1965, an elderly French woman of 90 years with no heirs and a smoking habit, entered a contract with her cunning 47 year old attorney. She sells him her apartment in exchange for life annuity payments. The elderly lady continues to live, eventually outliving him and continuing to receive payments from the deceased attorney's wife, as per the contract. She dies in 1997 at the age of 122 years, the longest human lifespan ever recorded. The attorney and his wife ended up paying more than twice the apartment's value to her over 3 decades.
She was a kickass lady too. She only stopped riding her bicycle after hitting 3 digits, and lived on her own until 110.
People really shouldn't bank on others dying.
This is a guy who posted to FB that ... he wanted to be a wizard and ninja when he grew up and now teaches magic and karate.
There is probably a best selling book buried in this thread already
Posting to follow. Not for the first time, I'm glad my family's not wealthy.
My family isn't wealthy either (like, laughably not wealthy), but that didn't stop them from getting on the crazy train when they though money was involved even if was a small amount.
My one contribution to this thread is a piece of advice: if you’re writing a will or trust, or giving any advice whatsoever to anyone else who’s doing so, make sure that it is written to exclude anyone whom an heir adopts as an adult.
My one contribution to this thread is a piece of advice: if you’re writing a will or trust, or giving any advice whatsoever to anyone else who’s doing so, make sure that it is written to exclude anyone whom an heir adopts as an adult.
If this is necessary then I would imagine hiring a lawyer would be best.
... You don’t know what state the testator will be a resident of when he or she dies ...
Hiring a lawyer is always best when it comes to doing your will. It's not a big investment for most people, and if it is expensive, that means your estate and your plans for it are complicated--in other words, you were all but guaranteed to screw it up if you didn't get a lawyer.
he wanted to be a wizard and ninja when he grew up and now teaches magic and karate.
99.999% of kids who want to grow up to be an astronaut or professional athlete fail...it sounds like this guy accomplished his goals almost exactly...how many people do you know who can honestly say that?
Thanks to the initiator of this thread. This has been incredibly cathartic. I've talked to no one but my wife about this.
I just learned about this--apparently when my father-in-law was literally hours away from death my two youngest sisters-in-law were going around his house putting different-colored sticky notes on the furniture they wanted, which was most of it. Sigh.
Step-dad actually gave us great advice about sentimental items – if you really want it, talk to them while they are alive.
On one side of my family, the only drama after grandparents died was over personal possessions rather than money. Some of my parents generation placed extreme sentimental value on specific items, and other members of that generation scooped them up without asking or discussing. I don't think it was malicious, but it certainly upset some folks who didn't realize their siblings had such hard-ons for certain pieces of furniture or whatever.This reminds me of a friend and her grandfather.
On the other side of the family, things got significantly more complicated because one of my poor/needy cousins was living in my grandparent's house (at well below market rent, but not for free) after the grandparent moved into a nursing home. All of the siblings who equally inherited a portion of that house wanted to sell it and split the proceeds, except of course the sibling whose kid was living in the house, who naturally argued that if grandparent was offering cut-rate rent then they clearly wanted the cousins to have the house. That sibling refused to buy out the other siblings, even though there was plenty of money available in the inheritance to do so. Much of the drama came from spouses of siblings, rather than the siblings themselves.
In the end, the sibling who was the executor had to evict my cousin, sell the house, and then equal distributing the proceeds. It took several years for family holiday dinners to get back to semi-normal because there was this lingering anger over the eviction of a family member. Who was present at said dinners with the person who evicted them.
Lesson 1: before you make your will, ask your kids/grandkids what specific items they most want to have after you die. Don't assume, ask. Write it into the will.
Lesson 2: disposing of real estate is difficult, and potentially more so if it's rented. Unless you're stewarding a family estate/castle, try to die without any.
My parents divorced when I was a teen. My mom left with literally the clothing on her back. I moved in with her 6 months later, at the end of a school year (had to change schools).Step-dad actually gave us great advice about sentimental items – if you really want it, talk to them while they are alive.
Yep.
My spouse recently collected the single household item he had hoped to inherit from his grandmother. She is still alive and healthy but is in the process of decluttering the house. As far as we know, no one else was coveting this piece, and spouse, who has never asked for or received anything else, is happy and content. He says if he inherits anything after his grandmother's passing, it will be icing on the cake.
Dewey Cheatum and Howe
lets call her Grace.
because its a nice name.
and she was my grandmother.
Lesson 2: disposing of real estate is difficult, and potentially more so if it's rented. Unless you're stewarding a family estate/castle, try to die without any.
Hiring a lawyer is always best when it comes to doing your will. It's not a big investment for most people, and if it is expensive, that means your estate and your plans for it are complicated--in other words, you were all but guaranteed to screw it up if you didn't get a lawyer.
I would personally say you can get away with something like ZegalZoom or Quicken Wills if you're young with limited assets and no kids. Once you start getting material assets and kids are in the picture, a will and trust are the way to go.
Some employers offer legal insurance or prepaid legal plans as part of open enrollment. They're normally a horrible deal, but they turn into an excellent deal if you use one to get a trust put together. We did this last year, and it was well worth it. I think we spent less than $200 for a full will, trust, and related power of attorney.
Luckily this problem is fixing itself, my kid bro turns 18 next week.
Step-dad actually gave us great advice about sentimental items – if you really want it, talk to them while they are alive.
My parents divorced when I was a teen. My mom left with literally the clothing on her back. I moved in with her 6 months later, at the end of a school year (had to change schools).Step-dad actually gave us great advice about sentimental items – if you really want it, talk to them while they are alive.
Yep.
My spouse recently collected the single household item he had hoped to inherit from his grandmother. She is still alive and healthy but is in the process of decluttering the house. As far as we know, no one else was coveting this piece, and spouse, who has never asked for or received anything else, is happy and content. He says if he inherits anything after his grandmother's passing, it will be icing on the cake.
She was still a little bitter, decades later, of the stuff she left there.
My dad died about 20 years after the divorce. My mom REALLY wanted her corn dishes. She had done ceramics for a few years, and had these dishes shaped like ears of corn, plus a platter, that she had made. Well, I flew back for my dad's burial. His will told my sister the executor to just "sell everything and divide the proceeds 7 ways". Let me tell you, my dad was the original Mustachian. There was not a single item in that house worth selling. Really. The walls still had dark wood paneling. The carpet in the living room was multicolor shag from 1971 (this was 2008). She expressly told everyone at the house after the burial "take what you want, the rest is getting dumped".
Long story short, I got my mom's corn dishes for her. She passed a few years ago too, but I think I might end up with them someday when my stepfather passes.
Best part about that burial day was going through a closet and finding a hanging clothing bag. Unzipped it to find one of my sister's prom dresses from the 1980s. Argued about whether it was hers or not. Anyway, pull out the dress and find my dad's Army uniform behind it, from WWII. What a treasure. We could have easily tossed the bag and never known it was there.
Also: selling the house was pretty easy. Sold full price within a week, in rural PA.
Lesson 2: disposing of real estate is difficult, and potentially more so if it's rented. Unless you're stewarding a family estate/castle, try to die without any.
Sage advice, Sol, and honestly I had never much thought about it before. I shall now try very hard not to die with any.
PS: Dewey, Cheatum and Howe is an old, old, old joke. :)
lets call her Grace.
because its a nice name.
and she was my grandmother.
This spoke to me.
One of my grandmother's was like this.
Let's call her Grace, too.
My Grandmother Grace got tossed out of her nursing home for biting another resident during a grannies-with-walkers full contact cat fight, Lord rest her gentle soul.
.
DH's dad called him up a couple of years ago to inform him that he was being removed from the will because we don't have kids. DH doesn't care about an inheritance, but he was understandably pissed off, on principle.
My one contribution to this thread is a piece of advice: if you’re writing a will or trust, or giving any advice whatsoever to anyone else who’s doing so, make sure that it is written to exclude anyone whom an heir adopts as an adult.
^^I'm sorry, but if someone leaves a big hulking piece of furniture sitting in someone else's house for one year (let alone 15), then that person fully deserves to discover that it has disappeared.
I'm not going into the whole drama, but my husband's grandmother specified that everything be split 50/50 between the two daughters. The only problem is that there were assets that there was no way could be split 50/50, in particular a piece of family land that had a cabin that the grandfather had built. But the grandmother just kept with, everything, 50/50. One daughter was sentimentally attached to the land and wanted to keep it in the family, the other wanted to either buy out the land/cabin at a discounted rate, or sell it and split the money 50/50.
^^I'm sorry, but if someone leaves a big hulking piece of furniture sitting in someone else's house for one year (let alone 15), then that person fully deserves to discover that it has disappeared.
Even if it's the only known door to Narnia, I agree.
Just remembered another goodie...
Quicky background: both from poor/uneducated rural families, my grandparents worked themselves like dogs to run a gas station/mechanic shop/dry goods store in their small town, and ended up being very comfortable in their old age. 5 children, one son deceased, one living son (asshole uncle, or AU for short), 3 daughters (one my mom, one lazy/slightly dysfunctional one, and one druggie/alcoholic petty criminal one).
After my grandmother passed, uncle had insisted on reading the will while standing at the gravesite before she was even buried (as per my previous story). It actually took about a week after.
Among other things, there was a large parcel of land - abut 100 acres - that had been in my grandfather's family for at least 3 generations. It was left in my grandmother's will divided by 5 - the 4 living children and the only child of the deceased son (my cousin). It was mostly wooded, used as farmland many years ago, but allowed to return to nature in the past 60 years.
I have fond memories of going out there to cut our Christmas trees with my grandparents and them farming a few acres and helping to pick turnips or corn or the like. And it was really nifty to know we'd eventually get this land with so much history and a part of our family.
AU was always a lying, money-chasing asshole. He did quite well in that he was successful, but was pretty awful to both of his parents and treated his siblings like garbage (granted, one of them was, but there were 2 very successful ones, and one that was just average). He had a reputation for double-dealing and cheating people but staying just on the right side of the law to avoid prosecution. He truly thought he was better than everyone else, and made sure you knew it too.
In any case, AU couldn't stand the idea of what he thought of as his birthright (the land) being divided out among his siblings and forced everyone into putting the land up for auction. It basically was because he refused every attempt to subdivide it or come to any sort of resolution short of him buying everyone out of their share at a pittance. So the parcel went up for auction. He was sure he would be able to swoop in and get all of the family land for nothing.
The auction company advertised it, and the rest of the heirs figured at least if they were to lose the family land, they should get something decent from it, so they were very sad, but resigned. The thing is, in the past 50 or so years, the land had become quite valuable as it was near a lakefront area that had become highly sought after.
AU put on a great show at the auction for many minutes upping his bids to outbid the others that had showed up. But then he was outbid by a developer that intended to put in a premium resort home community. AU didn't have that kind of money, and because he thought he was such hot shit, it never even occurred to him that he might lose it. He forced the sale of the land to try to put one over the rest of the siblings because he was so greedy, and ended up costing all of them something that they should have been able to own and enjoy for many more generations.
I don't think any of the rest of the family has spoken to him since, (he'd done many horrible things over the years) and honestly all of them probably wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire.
My family today is still involved in a tussle over my great-grandfather's property following his death in the mid-1960s.
Bis-abuelo left his wife and 4 living adult children in NYC to go back to the hillbilly farm in Puerto Rico, found another woman to take care of him, and fathered one last daughter. Said farm was less than 10 acres, and a shack with no running water. All 5 children inherited equally, but because of bad blood between first family and second family, and bad official record-keeping, legal status of property is screwed up beyond belief. Youngest daughter, by virtue of being on the property, managed to replace shack with better but un-permitted house for herself, then second house (also without permits) for her son's family. All original heirs are deceased, so now there are 2nd and 3rd generation heirs. Tax liens from time to time because title was never properly transferred to 1st-generation heirs and notices delivered to property address, although taxes have been mostly paid by the 2nd/3rd heirs living in NY/NJ/CT/FL/HI.
Every few years, the question of what to do with it flares up again. Not an income property, no longer useful as farm, can't sell without agreement of all remaining heirs, and would have to tackle the C of O for the new houses, not to mention any liens, back taxes and re-survey -- all to happen within Puerto Rican bureaucracy. My brother took about 6 months last year speaking with a local lawyer about the survey and getting taxes current again -- but the question of forcing out the descendant living on the property or suing them touched off another round of recriminations ("Mom/Dad/abuela would have wanted us to ...").
So, 50 years later, each heir is fighting over 1/10th share or less, while not having enough money to buy out anyone else's share and repair the legal deficiencies of the property. I suppose they are all waiting for some mythical RE developer to hand them lottery-sized checks while picking up all the expenses, thus justifying the word "inheritance" but since it can't even be torched for profit and none of us are in the meth business, I think that relinquishing it all to the illegitimate grandson who lives on the property without compensation is worth the peace of mind.
My Mom periodically threatens to die just so that I, as her executor and oldest heir, can wade through this muck.
When my mother (unmarried to my father, and the sole earner since my sister and I were born) tragically died when my sister and I were 16 and 13, and didn't leave 100% of her assets (mostly life insurance from her job) to our father, our father tried to sue me, his high school-aged daughter, for my share (properly recognizing that "caring" for my younger sister was a cash cow he shouldn't slaughter).OMFG
Looking back, the reason it started with just threatening vague letters from a lawyer was that he had no leg to stand on, but jesus. and I still talked to him for several years after that! Idiotic.
When my mother (unmarried to my father, and the sole earner since my sister and I were born) tragically died when my sister and I were 16 and 13, and didn't leave 100% of her assets (mostly life insurance from her job) to our father, our father tried to sue me, his high school-aged daughter, for my share (properly recognizing that "caring" for my younger sister was a cash cow he shouldn't slaughter).OMFG
Looking back, the reason it started with just threatening vague letters from a lawyer was that he had no leg to stand on, but jesus. and I still talked to him for several years after that! Idiotic.
Seriously, you won the shitty family stories competition.
My one contribution to this thread is a piece of advice: if you’re writing a will or trust, or giving any advice whatsoever to anyone else who’s doing so, make sure that it is written to exclude anyone whom an heir adopts as an adult.
Hmm. I'm adopting my daughter out of foster care as a teenager, it's very likely that I will adopt more, and since I'm adopting teenagers (as opposed to the more fashionable babies or toddlers) it's probable that one or more will reach the age of majority, "aging out of the system", before the adoption is finalized. That wouldn't make them any less a son or daughter of mine. Now, my parents for a variety of logistics reasons aren't going out of their way to be welcoming or inclusive, but if they were to preemptively disinherit one of my kids for being adopted, or for being adopted after their 18th birthday because of administrative nonsense beyond their control, it would really piss me off.
...eventually got mad enough at my sibling that she removed them from the will. She told me she had done this, likely told sibling too. I wasn't sure she had, or if it was just a threat. I always thought that if it was true, when the time came I would just transfer 50% to my sibling.
...eventually got mad enough at my sibling that she removed them from the will. She told me she had done this, likely told sibling too. I wasn't sure she had, or if it was just a threat. I always thought that if it was true, when the time came I would just transfer 50% to my sibling.
For anyone who's thinking about doing something like this, remember you can't "just transfer" significant amounts of cash or property to someone--you will be on the hook for taxes on the amount you transfer, unless it's going to a spouse. Your state or country may also have a very short list of other people you can give it to without taxes--my point is, find out what your local law is if you're even remotely considering doing something like this.
IRS state that you can make tax-free gifts up to a certain amount to just about anyone.
"The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.
Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year.
Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
Gifts to your spouse.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.
The annual exclusion applies to gifts to each donee. In other words, if you give each of your children $11,000 in 2002-2005, $12,000 in 2006-2008, $13,000 in 2009-2012 and $14,000 on or after January 1, 2013, the annual exclusion applies to each gift. The annual exclusion for 2014, 2015, and 2016 is $14,000."
...eventually got mad enough at my sibling that she removed them from the will. She told me she had done this, likely told sibling too. I wasn't sure she had, or if it was just a threat. I always thought that if it was true, when the time came I would just transfer 50% to my sibling.
For anyone who's thinking about doing something like this, remember you can't "just transfer" significant amounts of cash or property to someone--you will be on the hook for taxes on the amount you transfer, unless it's going to a spouse. Your state or country may also have a very short list of other people you can give it to without taxes--my point is, find out what your local law is if you're even remotely considering doing something like this.
IRS state that you can make tax-free gifts up to a certain amount to just about anyone.
"The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.
Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year.
Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
Gifts to your spouse.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.
The annual exclusion applies to gifts to each donee. In other words, if you give each of your children $11,000 in 2002-2005, $12,000 in 2006-2008, $13,000 in 2009-2012 and $14,000 on or after January 1, 2013, the annual exclusion applies to each gift. The annual exclusion for 2014, 2015, and 2016 is $14,000."
I had an attorney for probate, since I no longer live in the same county as my mom. I would have asked the attorney's advice. Of course, not everything in an estate is necessarily subject to probate. Why would I be paying taxes when giving something away? I can see the recipient having to pay tax....
I didn't expect or count on anything - I guess I am just glad it didn't cost me a bunch of money.
...eventually got mad enough at my sibling that she removed them from the will. She told me she had done this, likely told sibling too. I wasn't sure she had, or if it was just a threat. I always thought that if it was true, when the time came I would just transfer 50% to my sibling.
For anyone who's thinking about doing something like this, remember you can't "just transfer" significant amounts of cash or property to someone--you will be on the hook for taxes on the amount you transfer, unless it's going to a spouse. Your state or country may also have a very short list of other people you can give it to without taxes--my point is, find out what your local law is if you're even remotely considering doing something like this.
IRS state that you can make tax-free gifts up to a certain amount to just about anyone.
"The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.
Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year.
Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
Gifts to your spouse.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.
The annual exclusion applies to gifts to each donee. In other words, if you give each of your children $11,000 in 2002-2005, $12,000 in 2006-2008, $13,000 in 2009-2012 and $14,000 on or after January 1, 2013, the annual exclusion applies to each gift. The annual exclusion for 2014, 2015, and 2016 is $14,000."
I had an attorney for probate, since I no longer live in the same county as my mom. I would have asked the attorney's advice. Of course, not everything in an estate is necessarily subject to probate. Why would I be paying taxes when giving something away? I can see the recipient having to pay tax....
I didn't expect or count on anything - I guess I am just glad it didn't cost me a bunch of money.
Gift tax works like this: You can give a $14k gift to me (or anyone) once per year and not have to report it. You can give me a gift for $100k and you'd only have to report $86k of it to the IRS. Of this $86k you will pay... $0 in tax unless you've exceeded your lifetime limit (somewhere about $5,450,000).
...eventually got mad enough at my sibling that she removed them from the will. She told me she had done this, likely told sibling too. I wasn't sure she had, or if it was just a threat. I always thought that if it was true, when the time came I would just transfer 50% to my sibling.
For anyone who's thinking about doing something like this, remember you can't "just transfer" significant amounts of cash or property to someone--you will be on the hook for taxes on the amount you transfer, unless it's going to a spouse. Your state or country may also have a very short list of other people you can give it to without taxes--my point is, find out what your local law is if you're even remotely considering doing something like this.
IRS state that you can make tax-free gifts up to a certain amount to just about anyone.
"The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.
Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year.
Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
Gifts to your spouse.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.
The annual exclusion applies to gifts to each donee. In other words, if you give each of your children $11,000 in 2002-2005, $12,000 in 2006-2008, $13,000 in 2009-2012 and $14,000 on or after January 1, 2013, the annual exclusion applies to each gift. The annual exclusion for 2014, 2015, and 2016 is $14,000."
I had an attorney for probate, since I no longer live in the same county as my mom. I would have asked the attorney's advice. Of course, not everything in an estate is necessarily subject to probate. Why would I be paying taxes when giving something away? I can see the recipient having to pay tax....
I didn't expect or count on anything - I guess I am just glad it didn't cost me a bunch of money.
Gift tax works like this: You can give a $14k gift to me (or anyone) once per year and not have to report it. You can give me a gift for $100k and you'd only have to report $86k of it to the IRS. Of this $86k you will pay... $0 in tax unless you've exceeded your lifetime limit (somewhere about $5,450,000).
Can you give multiple people $14k gifts?
I don't think so, because I remember my grandparents paying my parents (and dads siblings) mortgages for a couple months to get around the gift tax stuff. Which is odd, because there wouldn't have been any tax on the estate.
I'm not going into the whole drama, but my husband's grandmother specified that everything be split 50/50 between the two daughters. The only problem is that there were assets that there was no way could be split 50/50, in particular a piece of family land that had a cabin that the grandfather had built. But the grandmother just kept with, everything, 50/50. One daughter was sentimentally attached to the land and wanted to keep it in the family, the other wanted to either buy out the land/cabin at a discounted rate, or sell it and split the money 50/50.
Protip: If it's just between two people, there is an optimal way to split things 50/50. First note that selling the property and splitting the proceeds DOES benefit both parties equally; however something feels "wrong" with this approach since one was more attached to it than the other. And it might not be optimal if the property were, e.g., worth $70k to her, but she only received $50k as her share of the sale.
The best way to do it is to have each daughter make a silent bid (they could simultaneously exchange slips of paper on which they wrote their bid amount) to decide the winner. Then the winner gets to have the property, and gives some cash to the loser. With numbers, this might work as
A bids $70k
B bids $60k.
Then A gets the property, and sends $70k/2 = 35k to B. In the end, A feels like she received $35k and B feels like she received $35k, and neither "envies" the other's position.
Friend of ours had a brother, serious ner-do-well, as in regularly vanished for months or a year or two at a time, heavy drug user, etc. When his mother passed away, she left half to each of her children, with the proviso that our friend was supposed to manage the money for his brother, since the brother couldn't be trusted with it, unless the brother "got cleaned up". It wasn't a lot of money, I think a few tens of thousands for each.
The problem with this is that it puts an unending obligation on our friend to try to track down the brother, see what he needs, and how does he even decide if the brother got cleaned up? Its a rather unfair thing to do to someone unless you have discussed it with them before hand (which didn't happen here) and they agree to accept the responsibility. I also have no idea if it is even enforceable?
I thought wills that set up trusts like this were supposed to have contingent trustees - in case first choice is unwilling or unable. I seriously doubt you'd have to serve as trustee if you don't want to.Friend of ours had a brother, serious ner-do-well, as in regularly vanished for months or a year or two at a time, heavy drug user, etc. When his mother passed away, she left half to each of her children, with the proviso that our friend was supposed to manage the money for his brother, since the brother couldn't be trusted with it, unless the brother "got cleaned up". It wasn't a lot of money, I think a few tens of thousands for each.
The problem with this is that it puts an unending obligation on our friend to try to track down the brother, see what he needs, and how does he even decide if the brother got cleaned up? Its a rather unfair thing to do to someone unless you have discussed it with them before hand (which didn't happen here) and they agree to accept the responsibility. I also have no idea if it is even enforceable?
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
So say no.
You're not obligated to trustee their estate for them. Tell them you'll give him his portion up front and be done, or give him nothing ever, or they can find someone else to do it.
If they want a trustee to enforce conditions, every law firm will happily assume that duty for the right price. You shouldn't be expected to do it for free.
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
So say no.
You're not obligated to trustee their estate for them. Tell them you'll give him his portion up front and be done, or give him nothing ever, or they can find someone else to do it.
If they want a trustee to enforce conditions, every law firm will happily assume that duty for the right price. You shouldn't be expected to do it for free.
I've said no, however I obviously can't control what other people put in their will. The fact I live in a different country will make it impossible to carry out the instructions even if I were willing. They don't seem to understand the difference between an executor and a trust administrator. I'm willing to be the executor if it's absolutely necessary (and would prefer that they pay somebody else to do it because of the logistics problem), but ongoing administration is out of the question.
General observation from practicing law in a small town for almost a decade: A very high proportion of elderly couples who don't have children are wealthy.
General observation from practicing law in a small town for almost a decade: A very high proportion of elderly couples who don't have children are wealthy.
Slight modification: a very high proportion of elderly couples with no children (who retire to small towns and can afford lawyers) are wealthy.
General observation from practicing law in a small town for almost a decade: A very high proportion of elderly couples who don't have children are wealthy.
Slight modification: a very high proportion of elderly couples with no children (who retire to small towns and can afford lawyers) are wealthy.
I thought wills that set up trusts like this were supposed to have contingent trustees - in case first choice is unwilling or unable. I seriously doubt you'd have to serve as trustee if you don't want to.Friend of ours had a brother, serious ner-do-well, as in regularly vanished for months or a year or two at a time, heavy drug user, etc. When his mother passed away, she left half to each of her children, with the proviso that our friend was supposed to manage the money for his brother, since the brother couldn't be trusted with it, unless the brother "got cleaned up". It wasn't a lot of money, I think a few tens of thousands for each.
The problem with this is that it puts an unending obligation on our friend to try to track down the brother, see what he needs, and how does he even decide if the brother got cleaned up? Its a rather unfair thing to do to someone unless you have discussed it with them before hand (which didn't happen here) and they agree to accept the responsibility. I also have no idea if it is even enforceable?
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
My family today is still involved in a tussle over my great-grandfather's property following his death in the mid-1960s.
Bis-abuelo left his wife and 4 living adult children in NYC to go back to the hillbilly farm in Puerto Rico, found another woman to take care of him, and fathered one last daughter. Said farm was less than 10 acres, and a shack with no running water. All 5 children inherited equally, but because of bad blood between first family and second family, and bad official record-keeping, legal status of property is screwed up beyond belief. Youngest daughter, by virtue of being on the property, managed to replace shack with better but un-permitted house for herself, then second house (also without permits) for her son's family. All original heirs are deceased, so now there are 2nd and 3rd generation heirs. Tax liens from time to time because title was never properly transferred to 1st-generation heirs and notices delivered to property address, although taxes have been mostly paid by the 2nd/3rd heirs living in NY/NJ/CT/FL/HI.
Every few years, the question of what to do with it flares up again. Not an income property, no longer useful as farm, can't sell without agreement of all remaining heirs, and would have to tackle the C of O for the new houses, not to mention any liens, back taxes and re-survey -- all to happen within Puerto Rican bureaucracy. My brother took about 6 months last year speaking with a local lawyer about the survey and getting taxes current again -- but the question of forcing out the descendant living on the property or suing them touched off another round of recriminations ("Mom/Dad/abuela would have wanted us to ...").
So, 50 years later, each heir is fighting over 1/10th share or less, while not having enough money to buy out anyone else's share and repair the legal deficiencies of the property. I suppose they are all waiting for some mythical RE developer to hand them lottery-sized checks while picking up all the expenses, thus justifying the word "inheritance" but since it can't even be torched for profit and none of us are in the meth business, I think that relinquishing it all to the illegitimate grandson who lives on the property without compensation is worth the peace of mind.
My Mom periodically threatens to die just so that I, as her executor and oldest heir, can wade through this muck.
This was a long time ago - sometime in the 60s. When my maternal grandmother died, there were 4 adult sibs including my mother who were equal inheritors. While 3 of them were at the funeral, the fourth, my aunt, cleaned out the house of anything of value including a player piano. I'm sure there were many items of greater value, but this is the one that always came up as the biggest outrage.
This caused a rift of about 20 years. Then somehow there was a reconciliation and my mother sent me out to visit that aunt in Minnesota. There was the player piano in her summer house.
Also husband is of the idea that writing wills is tempting fate and wouldn't write his. I've written mine but not sure what will happen in case we need his (his is a bit complex situation). I'm tired of reasoning it out with him. How do you convince spouses to get their things in order?
Friend of ours had a brother, serious ner-do-well, as in regularly vanished for months or a year or two at a time, heavy drug user, etc. When his mother passed away, she left half to each of her children, with the proviso that our friend was supposed to manage the money for his brother, since the brother couldn't be trusted with it, unless the brother "got cleaned up". It wasn't a lot of money, I think a few tens of thousands for each.
The problem with this is that it puts an unending obligation on our friend to try to track down the brother, see what he needs, and how does he even decide if the brother got cleaned up? Its a rather unfair thing to do to someone unless you have discussed it with them before hand (which didn't happen here) and they agree to accept the responsibility. I also have no idea if it is even enforceable?
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
Friend of ours had a brother, serious ner-do-well, as in regularly vanished for months or a year or two at a time, heavy drug user, etc. When his mother passed away, she left half to each of her children, with the proviso that our friend was supposed to manage the money for his brother, since the brother couldn't be trusted with it, unless the brother "got cleaned up". It wasn't a lot of money, I think a few tens of thousands for each.
The problem with this is that it puts an unending obligation on our friend to try to track down the brother, see what he needs, and how does he even decide if the brother got cleaned up? Its a rather unfair thing to do to someone unless you have discussed it with them before hand (which didn't happen here) and they agree to accept the responsibility. I also have no idea if it is even enforceable?
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
Also husband is of the idea that writing wills is tempting fate and wouldn't write his. I've written mine but not sure what will happen in case we need his (his is a bit complex situation). I'm tired of reasoning it out with him. How do you convince spouses to get their things in order?
it's a terrible job for the trustee sibling to have--all the more so because the will & trust almost never specifies that they should get paid anything for the work!
If my wife and I both die, I'm sure my kids will live in a very fancy house for the next few years and then be penniless and on their own at age 18.
Also husband is of the idea that writing wills is tempting fate and wouldn't write his. I've written mine but not sure what will happen in case we need his (his is a bit complex situation). I'm tired of reasoning it out with him. How do you convince spouses to get their things in order?
Would it help to point out that he has a will already? It is whatever his state/province says happens to his estate when he dies intestate. If he is happy with the standard provisions, and OK with some judicially appointed executor, fine. If not, he needs to change his will (i.e. replace the state's provisions with his own) and executor to reflect his wishes.
QuoteIf my wife and I both die, I'm sure my kids will live in a very fancy house for the next few years and then be penniless and on their own at age 18.
You need better friends!
it's a terrible job for the trustee sibling to have--all the more so because the will & trust almost never specifies that they should get paid anything for the work!
If we die before our children are 18, our assets go to a trust for their care. Our will specifies who will care for the kids, and it certainly spells out "all reasonable" expenses to the trustee for the trouble of taking them in.
The common problem with trust documents seems to be the exact opposite of what you've identified. It's not that trustees get saddled with work and no pay for it, it's that trustees get to drain too much of the trust funds for themselves because the definition of "reasonable and appropriate" expenses for the trustee is so easy to manipulate.
In cases where the trustee is the beneficiary, that's not a problem. But in the case of a trust like ours that is set up to care for our kids, I'm pretty confident the trustee/godparent is going to immediately spend down our assets on a fancy car and a new home and justify it as "necessary" because now she has these extra kids. If my wife and I both die, I'm sure my kids will live in a very fancy house for the next few years and then be penniless and on their own at age 18.
This thread is glorious. I hope there will be more posts soon.
I don't have any juicy inheritance stories. My Mom Mom (grandmother) passed December '14 and left money and items to her 3 children and 2 grandkids (my sister and I). For some reason my uncle was very concerned that I would be offended that my sister got more money than I did, by about 10k. My mom told us separately and we both shrugged. My sister was the golden child and has kids of her own, it only makes sense that she got more.
QuoteIf my wife and I both die, I'm sure my kids will live in a very fancy house for the next few years and then be penniless and on their own at age 18.
You need better friends!
We have a small disparity between our daughters too- one has a small cash insurance policy and the other doesn't. I informed the daughters to work it out, even if that included a fist fight out in the driveway... and I didn't ever want to hear about it again..to my face...or behind my back... or I would direct the entire estate here, and they could figure out which one it was in tribute to: http://www.thedonkeysanctuary.org.uk/...I think I may love you, haha— what an elegant solution!
This thread is glorious. I hope there will be more posts soon.
I don't have any juicy inheritance stories. My Mom Mom (grandmother) passed December '14 and left money and items to her 3 children and 2 grandkids (my sister and I). For some reason my uncle was very concerned that I would be offended that my sister got more money than I did, by about 10k. My mom told us separately and we both shrugged. My sister was the golden child and has kids of her own, it only makes sense that she got more.
We have a small disparity between our daughters too- one has a small cash insurance policy and the other doesn't. I informed the daughters to work it out, even if that included a fist fight out in the driveway... and I didn't ever want to hear about it again..to my face...or behind my back... or I would direct the entire estate here, and they could figure out which one it was in tribute to: http://www.thedonkeysanctuary.org.uk/
In our will...
If the will ever gets used for this, I'll try to post something here, but I can't promise anything....
In scenarios like this, one way to address it is to separate the guardian of the minors to the trustee of the trust. In my case I chose guardians that I feel will be better suited to take care of my children emotionally and choose a trustee that aligns more with my financial values. I trust both unconditionally also which helps me sleep better at night.
This might create a little tension separating the guardians and the trustee but I feel that having two parties involves helps keep accountability.
We have a small disparity between our daughters too- one has a small cash insurance policy and the other doesn't. I informed the daughters to work it out, even if that included a fist fight out in the driveway... and I didn't ever want to hear about it again..to my face...or behind my back... or I would direct the entire estate here, and they could figure out which one it was in tribute to: http://www.thedonkeysanctuary.org.uk/...I think I may love you, haha— what an elegant solution!
When my dad's mom slipped and fell into a coma in the old country, my dad immediately booked a ticket and flew over. Before flying out, he tried to get in contact with his sister who lived an hour away from us. She went completely AWOL. My dad even called the local police 'cause he was worried she was missing for some awful reason. Nope, she disappeared by choice and only showed up at the hospital weeks later after she 'finally checked her messages' and found out that the plug was going to be pulled. I wasn't told the specifics but arguments regarding the inheritance ensured and my dad was so pissed that he gladly gave up all his inheritance in exchange for eternal peace and quiet from his sister (they have a complicated history). My mom was so happy :)
When my MIL died, my SIL was the executor. It was in the will that the assets would be split evenly between her three children......
......In the next letter she said that because her name was listed as joint owner on MIL’s bank accounts, her lawyer said she was legally the owner and didn’t have to split the money so she was keeping it.
No surprise, DH hasn’t spoken to her since.
When my MIL died, my SIL was the executor. It was in the will that the assets would be split evenly between her three children.Your SIL sounds like my two SILs, dear husband's sisters and co-executors of my in-laws' estate. Had they not sucked every last dollar out of my in-laws during their lives, that is. I visited MILs house on the day she died, within an hour of her death--she had been in in-home hospice care--and I was shocked to see that nearly every piece of furniture and bric-a-brac was already gone, taken to give to one or another of SILs' kids.
DH considered taking some of his parents’ furniture as part of his share. As we had flown in for the funeral, he suggested driving MIL’s car home pulling a UHaul and selling the car for all to split proceeds once home. SIL was adamant that all property had to be valuated first and the car was not to leave FL. OK, except we learned she’d already offered the car to one of her daughters at well below market price.
I suggested that during the wake, friends of MIL should be allowed to select keepsakes from her large collection of fridge magnets and other decorativecrapstuff the family didn’t want. (Most of these items had been gifts from those same friends and had no cash value.) SIL treated us to a monologue on how she needed to be alone in MIL’s house for at least a week, with every bit of stuff still in place, so she could “process” MIL’s death. She wanted us all to go home and to come back two months later to distribute the personal property. (MIL lived in Florida; BIL was working in Japan and we live in Washington State.) I gently pointed out that leaving the place unattended 2 months in that neighborhood would result in returning to a meth lab, and that DH was scheduled for spinal surgery at the time she was insisting on.
DH wanted a mantel clock for sentimental reasons. SIL declared that she was keeping it, as “I’m the executor.” Later we learned she’d told her daughters that DH shouldn’t get any heirlooms because we don’t have children.
She declared herself “the family matriarch”. (This alone was enough to merit a facepunch, in my book.)
She prevented BIL and DH from dividing any small personal property items all week, until literally the day we were leaving for the airport. Once home, she sent us a letter about how she was going to divide all residual monies equally as MIL had wished. In the next letter she said that because her name was listed as joint owner on MIL’s bank accounts, her lawyer said she was legally the owner and didn’t have to split the money so she was keeping it.
No surprise, DH hasn’t spoken to her since.
I want to say something very awful about SIL, but I won't. But really, what is wrong with these people?
I want to say something very awful about SIL, but I won't. But really, what is wrong with these people?
Taran Wanderer: Oh, please feel free to say it. :-)
it's a terrible job for the trustee sibling to have--all the more so because the will & trust almost never specifies that they should get paid anything for the work!
If we die before our children are 18, our assets go to a trust for their care. Our will specifies who will care for the kids, and it certainly spells out "all reasonable" expenses to the trustee for the trouble of taking them in.
The common problem with trust documents seems to be the exact opposite of what you've identified. It's not that trustees get saddled with work and no pay for it, it's that trustees get to drain too much of the trust funds for themselves because the definition of "reasonable and appropriate" expenses for the trustee is so easy to manipulate.
In cases where the trustee is the beneficiary, that's not a problem. But in the case of a trust like ours that is set up to care for our kids, I'm pretty confident the trustee/godparent is going to immediately spend down our assets on a fancy car and a new home and justify it as "necessary" because now she has these extra kids. If my wife and I both die, I'm sure my kids will live in a very fancy house for the next few years and then be penniless and on their own at age 18.
Later we learned she’d told her daughters that DH shouldn’t get any heirlooms because we don’t have children.
No surprise, DH hasn’t spoken to her since.
When my maternal grandparents passed away they left all sentimental, generational family heirlooms to my uncle as he was the only son. In addition to letters and pictures was a family bible that had a handwritten account of births and deaths dating back over two hundred years as well as a handwritten account of the family's attempt to settle their farm land when they immigrated to the US (very cool).
My mother, the executor of the estate, was heartbroken to see my uncle get this family bible but stuck to the letter of my grandparents' will and doled out everything as they wanted.
Years later my uncle has blown through his money, lost his job, forgot to pay insurance on his house (in a flood plain), which was subsequently flooded, stopped paying his mortgage and eventually the bank was going to tear down the house as it was too damaged to salvage.
My mother and one of my aunts agreed to help him remove a few items from the home before it was razed (he had lost his license at that point) but on the appointed day he was MIA. My mother sat waiting for him for hours, just stewing over her brother's irresponsibility. Finally, she marched into the house, found the family bible and took it home.
The house (and everything in it) were gone by the end of the week but my mom had the bible cleaned and repaired by a professional book restorer and now it is safely tucked away in my parents' home. If my uncle ever mentions it I know she will give it back to him but I doubt he even remembers that he once had it.
Later we learned she’d told her daughters that DH shouldn’t get any heirlooms because we don’t have children.
No surprise, DH hasn’t spoken to her since.
Geez - that's some crazy shit.
How old are the SIL kids? Don't they care/wonder why they stopped talking to their uncle after their grandmother died?
Approximately 13 years ago, my husband's paternal grandfather dies. My future husband moves into his home and takes on the daunting process of clearing out all his belongings. Grandfather left his home and property to his two kids, my husband's dad and aunt. My husband's dad eventually decides he and his wife need to move into the house as they have both lost their jobs on the opposite coast and feel like their job prospects may be better here. Future husband moves out, they move in.
Apparently the Grandfather actually wanted the property to go to the 4 grandsons but the will was never updated. So, Father-in-law buys out his sister and her two sons, and the property now belongs to him and his two sons. Father-in-law then decides that it will be most lucrative to divide the property into 4 separate parcels and sell/build an investment property on the other 3 parcels, while he and his wife live in the home. In order to do this he needed money and my now husband, his brother, and my sign-off. Unfortunately, we were young and stupid and believed him when he told us we were just signing to get the lot lines redrawn. We were actually signing onto a loan to the tune of $149k to pay for all the fees associated with dividing up the lot. We found out about the loan while trying to refinance our home. We are essentially cosigners on this loan. What's even worse is that we have never seen the receipts for the actual cost of redrawing the lot lines and we now also know that they brought personal debt into this loan to the tune of 30k-50k. We have never been able to get our hands on that documentation either.
Just after the lot was subdivided the stock market crashed and the ability to sell those lots has been pretty much nonexistent. Husband's father and wife ONLY PAY THE INTEREST on this loan and have been for the past 10 years.
Some solutions my husband and I have offered are to 1) sell the lots and put the proceeds toward the loan, 2) we pay off the loan and they sign over all lots but the house to us, 3) have us all start paying down the loan based on our percentage of ownership, etc. There is no solution they're okay with. I should also mention that they carried over about 250k to the house they live in, which was paid off when they inherited it. Father-in-law is in his seventies, still working, and making zero progress on this loan. In the meantime they have bought a share in a condo in Hawaii and travel there twice a year.
I am so frustrated with this situation as it feels like there is no solution. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.
My paternal grandparents' deaths were full of drama.
7 kids (catholic family). 4 of the kids had undiagnosed, untreated mental health issues. By the time Grandpa had his stroke, Crazy Uncle still lived at home (in his 50's) had never held down a real job, did not use banks (money under mattress), etc.
So Grandpa has massive stroke and Super Catholic Uncle gets him put on a feeding tube, and he hangs on for 6 months in "rehab" before finally passing. Meanwhile, Crazy Uncle and Grandma live at home. It quickly becomes apparent that Grandma had been slipping mentally and Grandpa had been covering for her. Crazy Uncle is not covering for her. He is "taking care of her" but not well. Various attempts are made over a couple years to get him to do a better job of taking care of her in return for free room and board. In the end, Super Catholic Uncle (the only non-mentally ill one who lives locally) is doing all bill paying, checking in, scheduling, etc and Crazy Uncle is basically just a warm body in the house making sure Grandma doesn't wander out into traffic.
During these 2 years, there is much fighting amongst the siblings. Some of them do not ever visit Grandma. Some want the house sold and Grandma put in a home. Some want Crazy Uncle to continue "caring" for Grandma because the house is the main asset and if she goes in a home, there will be no inheritance (note: house was worth around 100K, and with 7 siblings it isn't like this is a ton of money we are talking about, making the whole thing even more sad). Alcoholic Uncle is an antiques hoarder and there is suspicion that he is nicking things from the house. Eventually Super Catholic Uncle, my dad, and Not-Crazy Aunt consult a lawyer, because getting Crazy Uncle out of the house is not super simple. They finally put Grandma in a nursing home, get Crazy Uncle out of the house, divide the possessions (this could be a whole separate story). By the time Grandma is in the home, she has lost a dangerous amount of weight, but she gains some weight in the home, continues to be a bitch on wheels (the more she lost her mind, the more bitchy she got. It was hilarious but also sad. She also got more and more racist to the point we would not take her out to lunch and stuff like that, as she would say LOUD "why is that black person in here" and things like that).
Grandma is in the home for about a year, slowly declining physically, totally not there mentally, the house gets sold, she dies before all the money is used, and everyone gets their 10K inheritance. Crazy Uncle is (we believe) getting some kind of section 8 type housing, Crazy Aunt*, Alcoholic Aunt, and Crazy Uncle #2 are basically never seen or heard from again. Alcoholic Uncle did not show up for the funeral. Crazy Uncle received his inheritance in cash. Crazy Aunt does still send wild emails to the whole family periodically so we know she is still alive. My dad, Not-Crazy Aunt, and Super Catholic Uncle still see each other a few times a year, with my dad and Not-Crazy Aunt being fairly close. Most of us grandkids (except my siblings and Not Crazy Aunt's kids) no longer see or talk to each other.
All that for 10K and some antiques.
*Tangential story about Crazy Aunt: Her oldest child gets into the state university, which has a very solid theater and film program, and he gets 100% financial aid because they have no money and no assets (they used to own a floral shop, but ran it into the ground, lost their paid off house, and declared bankruptcy. Totes the kind of people you want to be taking any kind of advice from). But he really wants to go out to CA to some fancy film school because he is going to be a famous director! For real!
So Cousin does 2 years for free at State, then quits to come home and start at Fancy Private Film School in the fall. He cannot actually get the loans for FPFS though, since neither he nor his parents can get them without some kind of co-signer. Crazy Aunt tries to convince everyone in the family to help pay for it, and everyone is like "WTF, your kid had a full ride, NO". So cousin works at the local movie theater for a couple years, then eventually somehow they scrape the money together and he moves out to Denver to go to some other "film "school" which is actually just an AA degree. Last I heard he is still working at a theater in Denver, never comes home (no money, no car) and has no other future plans.
My own Inheritance drama is just beginning....
Father still alive gave a substantial amount to my sister and me 2 yrs ago as pre-inheritance. My sister had no plans for it and still doesn't. The money is literally losing value daily since it's in a savings account at the bank, at less than 2% interest eaten up by inflation.
I knew I would buy a condo and did that. Father being the way he is (frugal and a big supporter of RE investment) gave me about 10k more than her which I was happy for, but also felt bad towards her. She started to keep track which is totally fine, but now she is also asking what he gave me for my birthday and Christmas last year - to keep track.
I am afraid this is going to end up in trouble over the next 10 years.... and the real Drama that makes me sad is, that she isn't doing anything with her share to make it grow. But there is nothing I can do. She is grown up and knows better. :(
... to be continued...
What your dad gives you for your birthday or Christmas is none of her business.
What your dad gives you for your birthday or Christmas is none of her business.
Thanks Threshkin - I agree and hummed and hahed my way out...
What your dad gives you for your birthday or Christmas is none of her business.
Thanks Threshkin - I agree and hummed and hahed my way out...
What your dad gives you for your birthday or Christmas is none of her business.
Thanks Threshkin - I agree and hummed and hahed my way out...
Wait, do we have the same sister?
My sister always asks who gave me how much bc she doesn't want to check were getting the same but she wants more than I got. Sometimes I tell her is none of her beeswax, other times I say crazy amounts to mess with her. 😃
My brother forged my mothers signature to have the title of one of her properties given to him. Recently he sold this property to an aunt. This brother used to bemoan the fact that he has siblings and if my mother had only had him her assets would not have to be divided up. My father who is divorced from my mother is quite the piece of work, he gloated that my mother never sought child support from him and she had the full financial burden of raising us four kids while he received the marital home. I no longer speak to him and my half sister has also cut him off and told him she would donate her inheritance to a cat shelter. My half brothers sister who has been on economic outpatient care her entire life will no doubt be kicking up a fuss when my childless aunt dies. I know that aunt is leaving significant assets to charities and an original of Australia's constitution to a library. I'm pretty sure sil will fight this and she somehow has all the valuable assets from when my grandmother passed away including a pair of Chippendale chairs which would be worth a small fortune. Despite her pretentions to class she squabbled with her sister over her own mothers valuables. That side of the family bemoan that my grandmother sold a valuable plot of land that is now worth several million. They are just obsessed with inheritance, I guess since they never bothered have proper careers themselves. Sil son had attended one of the most expensive prep schools in Australua (funded by gp I'm sure) but dropped out and last I heard from my father is selling valuables from his grandfather (on mothers side)for income. My father actually thinks this is a good business and is very proud of his grandson for being a prime mooch.
My brother forged my mothers signature to have the title of one of her properties given to him. Recently he sold this property to an aunt. This brother used to bemoan the fact that he has siblings and if my mother had only had him her assets would not have to be divided up. My father who is divorced from my mother is quite the piece of work, he gloated that my mother never sought child support from him and she had the full financial burden of raising us four kids while he received the marital home. I no longer speak to him and my half sister has also cut him off and told him she would donate her inheritance to a cat shelter. My half brothers sister who has been on economic outpatient care her entire life will no doubt be kicking up a fuss when my childless aunt dies. I know that aunt is leaving significant assets to charities and an original of Australia's constitution to a library. I'm pretty sure sil will fight this and she somehow has all the valuable assets from when my grandmother passed away including a pair of Chippendale chairs which would be worth a small fortune. Despite her pretentions to class she squabbled with her sister over her own mothers valuables. That side of the family bemoan that my grandmother sold a valuable plot of land that is now worth several million. They are just obsessed with inheritance, I guess since they never bothered have proper careers themselves. Sil son had attended one of the most expensive prep schools in Australua (funded by gp I'm sure) but dropped out and last I heard from my father is selling valuables from his grandfather (on mothers side)for income. My father actually thinks this is a good business and is very proud of his grandson for being a prime mooch.
My brother forged my mothers signature to have the title of one of her properties given to him. Recently he sold this property to an aunt.How is this not fraud and theft?
My own Inheritance drama is just beginning....
Father still alive gave a substantial amount to my sister and me 2 yrs ago as pre-inheritance. My sister had no plans for it and still doesn't. The money is literally losing value daily since it's in a savings account at the bank, at less than 2% interest eaten up by inflation.
I knew I would buy a condo and did that. Father being the way he is (frugal and a big supporter of RE investment) gave me about 10k more than her which I was happy for, but also felt bad towards her. She started to keep track which is totally fine, but now she is also asking what he gave me for my birthday and Christmas last year - to keep track.
I am afraid this is going to end up in trouble over the next 10 years.... and the real Drama that makes me sad is, that she isn't doing anything with her share to make it grow. But there is nothing I can do. She is grown up and knows better. :(
... to be continued...
What your dad gives you for your birthday or Christmas is none of her business.
My paternal grandparents' deaths were full of drama.
7 kids (catholic family). 4 of the kids had undiagnosed, untreated mental health issues. By the time Grandpa had his stroke, Crazy Uncle still lived at home (in his 50's) had never held down a real job, did not use banks (money under mattress), etc.
So Grandpa has massive stroke and Super Catholic Uncle gets him put on a feeding tube, and he hangs on for 6 months in "rehab" before finally passing. Meanwhile, Crazy Uncle and Grandma live at home. It quickly becomes apparent that Grandma had been slipping mentally and Grandpa had been covering for her. Crazy Uncle is not covering for her. He is "taking care of her" but not well. Various attempts are made over a couple years to get him to do a better job of taking care of her in return for free room and board. In the end, Super Catholic Uncle (the only non-mentally ill one who lives locally) is doing all bill paying, checking in, scheduling, etc and Crazy Uncle is basically just a warm body in the house making sure Grandma doesn't wander out into traffic.
During these 2 years, there is much fighting amongst the siblings. Some of them do not ever visit Grandma. Some want the house sold and Grandma put in a home. Some want Crazy Uncle to continue "caring" for Grandma because the house is the main asset and if she goes in a home, there will be no inheritance (note: house was worth around 100K, and with 7 siblings it isn't like this is a ton of money we are talking about, making the whole thing even more sad). Alcoholic Uncle is an antiques hoarder and there is suspicion that he is nicking things from the house. Eventually Super Catholic Uncle, my dad, and Not-Crazy Aunt consult a lawyer, because getting Crazy Uncle out of the house is not super simple. They finally put Grandma in a nursing home, get Crazy Uncle out of the house, divide the possessions (this could be a whole separate story). By the time Grandma is in the home, she has lost a dangerous amount of weight, but she gains some weight in the home, continues to be a bitch on wheels (the more she lost her mind, the more bitchy she got. It was hilarious but also sad. She also got more and more racist to the point we would not take her out to lunch and stuff like that, as she would say LOUD "why is that black person in here" and things like that).
Grandma is in the home for about a year, slowly declining physically, totally not there mentally, the house gets sold, she dies before all the money is used, and everyone gets their 10K inheritance. Crazy Uncle is (we believe) getting some kind of section 8 type housing, Crazy Aunt*, Alcoholic Aunt, and Crazy Uncle #2 are basically never seen or heard from again. Alcoholic Uncle did not show up for the funeral. Crazy Uncle received his inheritance in cash. Crazy Aunt does still send wild emails to the whole family periodically so we know she is still alive. My dad, Not-Crazy Aunt, and Super Catholic Uncle still see each other a few times a year, with my dad and Not-Crazy Aunt being fairly close. Most of us grandkids (except my siblings and Not Crazy Aunt's kids) no longer see or talk to each other.
All that for 10K and some antiques.
*Tangential story about Crazy Aunt: Her oldest child gets into the state university, which has a very solid theater and film program, and he gets 100% financial aid because they have no money and no assets (they used to own a floral shop, but ran it into the ground, lost their paid off house, and declared bankruptcy. Totes the kind of people you want to be taking any kind of advice from). But he really wants to go out to CA to some fancy film school because he is going to be a famous director! For real!
So Cousin does 2 years for free at State, then quits to come home and start at Fancy Private Film School in the fall. He cannot actually get the loans for FPFS though, since neither he nor his parents can get them without some kind of co-signer. Crazy Aunt tries to convince everyone in the family to help pay for it, and everyone is like "WTF, your kid had a full ride, NO". So cousin works at the local movie theater for a couple years, then eventually somehow they scrape the money together and he moves out to Denver to go to some other "film "school" which is actually just an AA degree. Last I heard he is still working at a theater in Denver, never comes home (no money, no car) and has no other future plans.
given the dropping Dow this week.
I think condos are pretty awful "investments"
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
My own Inheritance drama is just beginning....
Father still alive gave a substantial amount to my sister and me 2 yrs ago as pre-inheritance. My sister had no plans for it and still doesn't. The money is literally losing value daily since it's in a savings account at the bank, at less than 2% interest eaten up by inflation.
I knew I would buy a condo and did that. Father being the way he is (frugal and a big supporter of RE investment) gave me about 10k more than her which I was happy for, but also felt bad towards her. She started to keep track which is totally fine, but now she is also asking what he gave me for my birthday and Christmas last year - to keep track.
I am afraid this is going to end up in trouble over the next 10 years.... and the real Drama that makes me sad is, that she isn't doing anything with her share to make it grow. But there is nothing I can do. She is grown up and knows better. :(
... to be continued...
What your dad gives you for your birthday or Christmas is none of her business.
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Your family is apparently a little spicier than mine.
One of my grandpas definitely had a VHS porn stash, but several of us knew where it was (poorly) hidden and it mysteriously disappeared several years before he died. I like to think he had the foresight to to clean out his embarrassing stuff before his time came, in order to spare the family from any further gossip.
May we all be so thoughtful.
My other grandpa was diagnosed with severe emphysema and given a short time to live, while in his late 50s. He started writing a letter for his wife, on his computer, and left a printed letter with his will that had instructions for her on how to find it. He managed to keep it a secret while living another unexpected 14 years after that, and when she opened that letter on the computer it had 14 years of weekly messages to her, each describing how lucky he felt to have had that one additional week of experiences together and what they did that week that he most enjoyed. As love letters go, I'll never compete with that.
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Your family is apparently a little spicier than mine.
One of my grandpas definitely had a VHS porn stash, but several of us knew where it was (poorly) hidden and it mysteriously disappeared several years before he died. I like to think he had the foresight to to clean out his embarrassing stuff before his time came, in order to spare the family from any further gossip.
May we all be so thoughtful.
My other grandpa was diagnosed with severe emphysema and given a short time to live, while in his late 50s. He started writing a letter for his wife, on his computer, and left a printed letter with his will that had instructions for her on how to find it. He managed to keep it a secret while living another unexpected 14 years after that, and when she opened that letter on the computer it had 14 years of weekly messages to her, each describing how lucky he felt to have had that one additional week of experiences together and what they did that week that he most enjoyed. As love letters go, I'll never compete with that.
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Your family is apparently a little spicier than mine.
One of my grandpas definitely had a VHS porn stash, but several of us knew where it was (poorly) hidden and it mysteriously disappeared several years before he died. I like to think he had the foresight to to clean out his embarrassing stuff before his time came, in order to spare the family from any further gossip.
May we all be so thoughtful.
My other grandpa was diagnosed with severe emphysema and given a short time to live, while in his late 50s. He started writing a letter for his wife, on his computer, and left a printed letter with his will that had instructions for her on how to find it. He managed to keep it a secret while living another unexpected 14 years after that, and when she opened that letter on the computer it had 14 years of weekly messages to her, each describing how lucky he felt to have had that one additional week of experiences together and what they did that week that he most enjoyed. As love letters go, I'll never compete with that.
I'm not crying, what are you talking about, YOU'RE CRYING
My brother forged my mothers signature to have the title of one of her properties given to him. Recently he sold this property to an aunt. This brother used to bemoan the fact that he has siblings and if my mother had only had him her assets would not have to be divided up. My father who is divorced from my mother is quite the piece of work, he gloated that my mother never sought child support from him and she had the full financial burden of raising us four kids while he received the marital home. I no longer speak to him and my half sister has also cut him off and told him she would donate her inheritance to a cat shelter. My half brothers sister who has been on economic outpatient care her entire life will no doubt be kicking up a fuss when my childless aunt dies. I know that aunt is leaving significant assets to charities and an original of Australia's constitution to a library. I'm pretty sure sil will fight this and she somehow has all the valuable assets from when my grandmother passed away including a pair of Chippendale chairs which would be worth a small fortune. Despite her pretentions to class she squabbled with her sister over her own mothers valuables. That side of the family bemoan that my grandmother sold a valuable plot of land that is now worth several million. They are just obsessed with inheritance, I guess since they never bothered have proper careers themselves. Sil son had attended one of the most expensive prep schools in Australua (funded by gp I'm sure) but dropped out and last I heard from my father is selling valuables from his grandfather (on mothers side)for income. My father actually thinks this is a good business and is very proud of his grandson for being a prime mooch.
WOW - that's rich! How awful to be so spiteful!!!
Apparently greed is running in the other half of your family. Just stay away from it as far as you can. Don't get involved and if it gets too bad hire a lawyer and let them deal with it. I am so sorry though that you have to watch and listen to all this. :(
My brother forged my mothers signature to have the title of one of her properties given to him. Recently he sold this property to an aunt.How is this not fraud and theft?
Why didn't you all report his sorry ass to the competent authorities if he refused to sign it back?
She's decided to disinherit him from her Australian assets instead.
Quotegiven the dropping Dow this week.
I think condos are pretty awful "investments"
Buying high and selling low is much easier too. It kind of all depends on where the condo is right, or like if one intended to own it and live in it.
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Quotegiven the dropping Dow this week.
I think condos are pretty awful "investments"
Buying high and selling low is much easier too. It kind of all depends on where the condo is right, or like if one intended to own it and live in it.
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Thank you!
A condo in Iowa might not be a great investment...
and of course I would have much rather bought a 4 acre farm, but they are awfully hard to come by in downtown Toronto... ;)
HEY! Again, it would depend on where (location, location, location)!
I mean... an igloo in Florida might not be a smart choice, but in Montreal or Quebec City... HUGE I mean HUGE return on investment!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ6Pdvf3TpQ
And then come June you have a nice swimming pool.
I mean... an igloo in Florida might not be a smart choice, but in Montreal or Quebec City... HUGE I mean HUGE return on investment!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ6Pdvf3TpQ
My own Inheritance drama is just beginning....
Father still alive gave a substantial amount to my sister and me 2 yrs ago as pre-inheritance. My sister had no plans for it and still doesn't. The money is literally losing value daily since it's in a savings account at the bank, at less than 2% interest eaten up by inflation.
I knew I would buy a condo and did that. Father being the way he is (frugal and a big supporter of RE investment) gave me about 10k more than her which I was happy for, but also felt bad towards her. She started to keep track which is totally fine, but now she is also asking what he gave me for my birthday and Christmas last year - to keep track.
I am afraid this is going to end up in trouble over the next 10 years.... and the real Drama that makes me sad is, that she isn't doing anything with her share to make it grow. But there is nothing I can do. She is grown up and knows better. :(
... to be continued...
Just curious - why did your dad give you 10K more? Or why didn't he give the same to your sister? That seems kind of.... unfair and sort of asking to foment trouble between siblings. Obviously a person can do whatever he wants with his money. But personally I wouldn't like it if one of my parents did that for no discernible reason other than my sibling wanted to buy real estate and I didn't.
My own Inheritance drama is just beginning....
Father still alive gave a substantial amount to my sister and me 2 yrs ago as pre-inheritance. My sister had no plans for it and still doesn't. The money is literally losing value daily since it's in a savings account at the bank, at less than 2% interest eaten up by inflation.
I knew I would buy a condo and did that. Father being the way he is (frugal and a big supporter of RE investment) gave me about 10k more than her which I was happy for, but also felt bad towards her. She started to keep track which is totally fine, but now she is also asking what he gave me for my birthday and Christmas last year - to keep track.
I am afraid this is going to end up in trouble over the next 10 years.... and the real Drama that makes me sad is, that she isn't doing anything with her share to make it grow. But there is nothing I can do. She is grown up and knows better. :(
... to be continued...
Just curious - why did your dad give you 10K more? Or why didn't he give the same to your sister? That seems kind of.... unfair and sort of asking to foment trouble between siblings. Obviously a person can do whatever he wants with his money. But personally I wouldn't like it if one of my parents did that for no discernible reason other than my sibling wanted to buy real estate and I didn't.
You are completely right. It's not fair and I wish he would have split the money 50/50.
Luckily my sister and I both see that and she is not blaming me for his decision.
I can just hope that it will stay that way.
And why he did that? I say it's the intended investment that he prefers. But family issues run deep...
Just curious: If you wish your dad had made it even, have you considered giving your sister $5K to make it even?
Well, it sounds like you have a great relationship. Good on you.
She's Thai but lives in Australia now. Many Australians hold assets in their ancestral countries, particularly Thais, Greeks and Lebanese.QuoteShe's decided to disinherit him from her Australian assets instead.
That is a sentence I have never read before. What a fascinating life.
Well, it sounds like you have a great relationship. Good on you.
Thank you Joe. :)
Yes we do. I just hope it stays that way.
I'm not going into the whole drama, but my husband's grandmother specified that everything be split 50/50 between the two daughters. The only problem is that there were assets that there was no way could be split 50/50, in particular a piece of family land that had a cabin that the grandfather had built. But the grandmother just kept with, everything, 50/50. One daughter was sentimentally attached to the land and wanted to keep it in the family, the other wanted to either buy out the land/cabin at a discounted rate, or sell it and split the money 50/50.
Protip: If it's just between two people, there is an optimal way to split things 50/50. First note that selling the property and splitting the proceeds DOES benefit both parties equally; however something feels "wrong" with this approach since one was more attached to it than the other. And it might not be optimal if the property were, e.g., worth $70k to her, but she only received $50k as her share of the sale.
The best way to do it is to have each daughter make a silent bid (they could simultaneously exchange slips of paper on which they wrote their bid amount) to decide the winner. Then the winner gets to have the property, and gives some cash to the loser. With numbers, this might work as
A bids $70k
B bids $60k.
Then A gets the property, and sends $70k/2 = 35k to B. In the end, A feels like she received $35k and B feels like she received $35k, and neither "envies" the other's position.
Quotegiven the dropping Dow this week.
I think condos are pretty awful "investments"
Buying high and selling low is much easier too. It kind of all depends on where the condo is right, or like if one intended to own it and live in it.
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Thank you!
A condo in Iowa might not be a great investment...
and of course I would have much rather bought a 4 acre farm, but they are awfully hard to come by in downtown Toronto... ;)
No drama here, mostly posting to follow.
However, my little sister and I were discussing what we would inherit, and how stuff would be divvied up.
She gets 1st floor and above (house stuff, knicknacks etc)
I get the basement, mostly Dad's ham radio stuff, train set etc.
My stepmother comes in and asks "What are you guys talking about?".
Us-- How we divvy stuff up, and then we explain it and got a nodding approval for the plan.
At the time, I was ~ 23 and Sis was ~ 14
My stepmother has mentioned giggly, that "I guess we are spending your inheritance", with new kitchen redoo, new garage,
all after my dad retired.
I said "It's your money".
Anyway, my stepmom is likely to last a long time, based on her mom's age, so I'm not looking for anything at all.
My guess that their income/wealth is mostly from dad's pension, which I can't inherit anyway.
The thing I don't understand is how parents can be so obtuse with these things. Can they not see the emotional damage they are wreaking? I love what my mom and stepfather have done: with my mom's two and my stepfather's three kids, they have said that they plan to split everything 5 ways. Plain and simple. If one goes before the other, I guess that could potentially change, but given who they are, how they live, and how generous and kind they are, I doubt it. And if so, so what? We are all grown ups and don't "deserve" anything.
The thing I don't understand is how parents can be so obtuse with these things. Can they not see the emotional damage they are wreaking? I love what my mom and stepfather have done: with my mom's two and my stepfather's three kids, they have said that they plan to split everything 5 ways. Plain and simple. If one goes before the other, I guess that could potentially change, but given who they are, how they live, and how generous and kind they are, I doubt it. And if so, so what? We are all grown ups and don't "deserve" anything.
I think most people do, but they rationalise it away as one son being emotionally hurt as a lesser evil than their other son actually starving/becoming homeless in retirement. Even when the starvation/homelessness/whatever is entirely self-inflicted.
In the Millionaire Next Door books the author talks about how wealthy parents can inadvertantly 'weaken' one child with what he called 'economic outpatient care'. EOC involved subsidising the child's lifestyle and perversely rewarding their bad behaviour.
The thing I don't understand is how parents can be so obtuse with these things. Can they not see the emotional damage they are wreaking? I love what my mom and stepfather have done: with my mom's two and my stepfather's three kids, they have said that they plan to split everything 5 ways. Plain and simple. If one goes before the other, I guess that could potentially change, but given who they are, how they live, and how generous and kind they are, I doubt it. And if so, so what? We are all grown ups and don't "deserve" anything.
I think most people do, but they rationalise it away as one son being emotionally hurt as a lesser evil than their other son actually starving/becoming homeless in retirement. Even when the starvation/homelessness/whatever is entirely self-inflicted.
In the Millionaire Next Door books the author talks about how wealthy parents can inadvertantly 'weaken' one child with what he called 'economic outpatient care'. EOC involved subsidising the child's lifestyle and perversely rewarding their bad behaviour.
I think that most parents and/or grandparents don't realize how their actions make the other siblings feel when they single out one to help even when the rest are financially and emotionally fine. If they do, they must believe that the other kids that "don't need it" understand and are okay with the additional help that is given. Because I do not have any kids I cannot speak from a parents point of view but I wonder if some of the extra giving is because parents want to feel needed and so they continue to give to the struggling children even if it is self-inflicted. Do any parents have thoughts on this?
I have experienced this firsthand and completely agree with "Economic Outpatient Care". My parents continue to financially help my soon to be 26 year old sibling even though she has a decent job ($45k) because she blows it on ridiculous stuff. I just sit back and wonder how long it will continue...?
We're working through a "but X needs it more" situation at present, but with a slight twist.
DW's parents are both still with us, but they're doing some estate planning and DW, being the financially stable sibling, has been included in the conversation. My BIL is a walking financial disaster. Good guy, but some poor career decisions, bankruptcy, divorce, and a tendency to spend on things because he "deserves" them have all taken their toll. He and his young son have now moved back "home" with the in-laws. He has an OK job, but is basically living paycheck to paycheck. Anyway... the in-laws have come to the conclusion that they have assisted BIL more than DW, and want to correct that going forward. They are obsessed with making all financial things "even."
Our argument to them is - BIL needs it more. We don't need their money. We're FI. We have everything we want and need. If the in-laws aren't going to spend the money on themselves, then they should give it to BIL. If you don't give BIL enough money to correct his situation (set aside the debate as to whether or not he actually WOULD use it for that...) then his financial care falls on us when the in-laws are gone. Despite our frustrations with some of BIL's decisions, we're not so cold hearted that we're going to allow a sibling and nephew to live in poverty. We would prefer that my in-laws give him the money, and that way we're left out of it. Unfortunately the in-laws see it differently, and care of my BIL and nephew is going to fall squarely on our shoulders after they pass.
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
That reminds me, I need to get some new jeans, if they are comfortable and I like wearing them, I'll go and buy 5 more. I'm starting to love wearing identical things daily, it makes life a little easier.
Where to begin...
DW's dad and step-mother are both still alive and well, but I expect some drama when they do finally pass. My wife has 2 older brothers: the middle son is doing quite well and has MMM skills, the oldest drinks and spends too much (but his house is paid for and kids are grown, so could be much worse).
The problem is going to be with DW's step-sister. She's the same age as the older brother (late 40's?), is three times divorced, and is in general a complete train wreck. She married husband number three after dating for a couple months. He apparently told her he was a sex offender, but lied about his/the victim's ages. She had an in-home daycare that she's run for about 20 years. Suddenly, she is closing it without another job prospect. We all scratched our heads over this one, til it dawned on me that he must be a sex offender. Looked him up, sure enough - he was 19, she was 13. We passed that information on to DW's dad, who relayed it to her. Long story short, she booted him out, he landed back in jail (for like the third time) for being non-compliant. Not before he financed a car and ran up a bunch of credit cards in her name.
She decided against declaring bankruptcy, but is instead ignoring all of her bills/creditors (good plan). She's reopened her daycare, but is constantly complaining how she has no money. Meanwhile, on Facebook we see an endless procession of pictures/videos of her out at the bar with her friends each and every weekend, drinking it up. Did I mention she's friends with her daycare clients on Facebook!?!? Just the kind of person I'd want watching my kids... She's also taking a 7 day cruise in April with FIL and SMIL, but still has no money and can't figure out why. DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.
To their credit, FIL and SMIL have changed their will so that she only gets an 1/8 of the estate. Her other half goes to her grown daughter who is unfortunately just like her mom. I can't see this ending well. I just hope it's years from now before we have to deal with it!
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
Holy crap! That's incredible!
My mom has a similar, but not quite as badass story, about my great-grandmother. Great-grandma was born in 1904, married young, had grandpa, and divorced her alcoholic husband in 1926 (go, great-grandma!). She was a single mom raising grandpa through the prime-time of the Great Depression, so I can only imagine how tough it was on her. As many of her generation did, throughout the rest of her life she never again trusted the stock market, or most banks, and only took out U.S. Savings Bonds as her means of saving. As she got older and needed to be moved into a retirement home, she called my mom and instructed her to go into her house and remove the center leaf of her dining room table. My mom found what turned out to be approximately $15,000 worth of U.S. Savings Bonds in that table.
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
Holy crap! That's incredible!
My mom has a similar, but not quite as badass story, about my great-grandmother. Great-grandma was born in 1904, married young, had grandpa, and divorced her alcoholic husband in 1926 (go, great-grandma!). She was a single mom raising grandpa through the prime-time of the Great Depression, so I can only imagine how tough it was on her. As many of her generation did, throughout the rest of her life she never again trusted the stock market, or most banks, and only took out U.S. Savings Bonds as her means of saving. As she got older and needed to be moved into a retirement home, she called my mom and instructed her to go into her house and remove the center leaf of her dining room table. My mom found what turned out to be approximately $15,000 worth of U.S. Savings Bonds in that table.
We had to take my great aunt's house apart to find a stack of savings bonds worth over $100,000. She knew she put them somewhere safe, but couldn't remember where (small nook in the 2nd bedroom closet).
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
Holy crap! That's incredible!
My mom has a similar, but not quite as badass story, about my great-grandmother. Great-grandma was born in 1904, married young, had grandpa, and divorced her alcoholic husband in 1926 (go, great-grandma!). She was a single mom raising grandpa through the prime-time of the Great Depression, so I can only imagine how tough it was on her. As many of her generation did, throughout the rest of her life she never again trusted the stock market, or most banks, and only took out U.S. Savings Bonds as her means of saving. As she got older and needed to be moved into a retirement home, she called my mom and instructed her to go into her house and remove the center leaf of her dining room table. My mom found what turned out to be approximately $15,000 worth of U.S. Savings Bonds in that table.
We had to take my great aunt's house apart to find a stack of savings bonds worth over $100,000. She knew she put them somewhere safe, but couldn't remember where (small nook in the 2nd bedroom closet).
I would not be surprised to find this at my parents' house. Mom had Alzheimer's. The last few years she was home she was both increasingly paranoid (someone's going to steal my money!) and incredibly forgetful. She had a habit of hiding money, forgetting where she hid it and then demanding it was stolen. Assuming no one has found it (and actually stolen it) ... I bet there are a few thousand scattered here and there through the house.
It is not uncommon for people who remember the Great Depression to bury things in their yard. There has to be millions of dollars of long forgotten wealth lying just a foot or two under the ground.
As an accountant, we have seen some iron clad wills contested until there were few assets left for the heirs. We have seen people fighting over the stupidest things, not because they had value or even sentimental value, just because they did not want the other heirs to have something. Lots of drama in estates. We cringe, when there is big dollars and a weak will or adversarial heirs.This may be the best story on this thread so far.
With that being said. My firm learned that a client passed away who had an estate of $50 million plus(1990 dollars). A part that makes it unbelievable is this client almost died in an accident a few years prior and we and his attorney were pleading with him to get a will done. This guy was going to live forever or something. Very savvy businessman who used attorneys on a daily basis, yet he did not have a will.
Added to this was that he was recently remarried within 5 years of his death. He was rich prior to marriage. He brought in 2 young adult children and his new wife brought in two young adult children to their new family. They were probably all all minors upon marriage, and all adults or close to being an adult upon death. Young enough to be stupid, brash and entitled.
So we are told of the tragedy as follows:
Our client and his new wife are in the Bahamas or some amazing place on his 80 foot boat. They are out jet skiing by themselves with no personal flotation devices. He has a heart attack/stroke or something that is not good. She jumps off of her jet ski to try to save him and keep his head above water. They both die!
No will! Who died first? If her kids can prove that he died first. Then all of his assets would go to her. Then if she died 5 minutes later her kids could make a claim that all of his assets or most of his assets should go to them. Who died first?
The partner in charge of this estate was rightfully very worried about how the estate was going to go. Very complicated businesses to run, lots of money, heirs that may feel entitled or that the other potential heirs are not entitled, etc.
How did it go! It went ridiculously well. All of the kids decided to split the estate equally. Minimal drama as they all worked really well to ensure that the businesses were run well. I think both parents raised the kids well. They knew that that their dad loved his new wife, that he loved his new step-kids, and that he would want them to all work well together. The same could be said of his wife's kids.
After seeing/hearing people fighting over the silverware that is not listed in the will. We had a family who was fairly rich, with a new wife, no will, young heirs who handled the estate with respect.
Lots of estate stories out there. The moral of the story, don't have a will. No!!
As an accountant, we have seen some iron clad wills contested until there were few assets left for the heirs. We have seen people fighting over the stupidest things, not because they had value or even sentimental value, just because they did not want the other heirs to have something. Lots of drama in estates. We cringe, when there is big dollars and a weak will or adversarial heirs.
With that being said. My firm learned that a client passed away who had an estate of $50 million plus(1990 dollars). A part that makes it unbelievable is this client almost died in an accident a few years prior and we and his attorney were pleading with him to get a will done. This guy was going to live forever or something. Very savvy businessman who used attorneys on a daily basis, yet he did not have a will.
Added to this was that he was recently remarried within 5 years of his death. He was rich prior to marriage. He brought in 2 young adult children and his new wife brought in two young adult children to their new family. They were probably all all minors upon marriage, and all adults or close to being an adult upon death. Young enough to be stupid, brash and entitled.
So we are told of the tragedy as follows:
Our client and his new wife are in the Bahamas or some amazing place on his 80 foot boat. They are out jet skiing by themselves with no personal flotation devices. He has a heart attack/stroke or something that is not good. She jumps off of her jet ski to try to save him and keep his head above water. They both die!
No will! Who died first? If her kids can prove that he died first. Then all of his assets would go to her. Then if she died 5 minutes later her kids could make a claim that all of his assets or most of his assets should go to them. Who died first?
The partner in charge of this estate was rightfully very worried about how the estate was going to go. Very complicated businesses to run, lots of money, heirs that may feel entitled or that the other potential heirs are not entitled, etc.
How did it go! It went ridiculously well. All of the kids decided to split the estate equally. Minimal drama as they all worked really well to ensure that the businesses were run well. I think both parents raised the kids well. They knew that that their dad loved his new wife, that he loved his new step-kids, and that he would want them to all work well together. The same could be said of his wife's kids.
After seeing/hearing people fighting over the silverware that is not listed in the will. We had a family who was fairly rich, with a new wife, no will, young heirs who handled the estate with respect.
Lots of estate stories out there. The moral of the story, don't have a will. No!!
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
We're working through a "but X needs it more" situation at present, but with a slight twist.
DW's parents are both still with us, but they're doing some estate planning and DW, being the financially stable sibling, has been included in the conversation. My BIL is a walking financial disaster. Good guy, but some poor career decisions, bankruptcy, divorce, and a tendency to spend on things because he "deserves" them have all taken their toll. He and his young son have now moved back "home" with the in-laws. He has an OK job, but is basically living paycheck to paycheck. Anyway... the in-laws have come to the conclusion that they have assisted BIL more than DW, and want to correct that going forward. They are obsessed with making all financial things "even."
Our argument to them is - BIL needs it more. We don't need their money. We're FI. We have everything we want and need. If the in-laws aren't going to spend the money on themselves, then they should give it to BIL. If you don't give BIL enough money to correct his situation (set aside the debate as to whether or not he actually WOULD use it for that...) then his financial care falls on us when the in-laws are gone. Despite our frustrations with some of BIL's decisions, we're not so cold hearted that we're going to allow a sibling and nephew to live in poverty. We would prefer that my in-laws give him the money, and that way we're left out of it. Unfortunately the in-laws see it differently, and care of my BIL and nephew is going to fall squarely on our shoulders after they pass.
I would not be surprised to find this at my parents' house. Mom had Alzheimer's. The last few years she was home she was both increasingly paranoid (someone's going to steal my money!) and incredibly forgetful. She had a habit of hiding money, forgetting where she hid it and then demanding it was stolen. Assuming no one has found it (and actually stolen it) ... I bet there are a few thousand scattered here and there through the house.
Mom and Daddy are still alive. But were they to get hit by a low flying flamingo tomorrow, my older brother and I would inherit everything equally. They only difference is that I get my share upfront, while his is put in a trust with me as the executor. I told Daddy that my brother wouldn't be the rock I carry around my neck for the rest of my life, and that I would be releasing his money to him asap. The less I have to do with my sibling, the better.
Daddy shrugged, told me he would dead so he wouldn't care, then told me not to be bitter. Then he went on an hour long diatribe about what a mess my brother is, and how Daddy cried over him. I'm not the bitter one.
Mom and Daddy are still alive. But were they to get hit by a low flying flamingo tomorrow, my older brother and I would inherit everything equally. They only difference is that I get my share upfront, while his is put in a trust with me as the executor. I told Daddy that my brother wouldn't be the rock I carry around my neck for the rest of my life, and that I would be releasing his money to him asap. The less I have to do with my sibling, the better.
Daddy shrugged, told me he would dead so he wouldn't care, then told me not to be bitter. Then he went on an hour long diatribe about what a mess my brother is, and how Daddy cried over him. I'm not the bitter one.
Holy crap. Are you my clone?
The only difference between your situation and mine is that my particular messed-up sibling happens to be younger than me.
I would not be surprised to find this at my parents' house. Mom had Alzheimer's. The last few years she was home she was both increasingly paranoid (someone's going to steal my money!) and incredibly forgetful. She had a habit of hiding money, forgetting where she hid it and then demanding it was stolen. Assuming no one has found it (and actually stolen it) ... I bet there are a few thousand scattered here and there through the house.
My ex-husband's grandfather was like this before we found nursing home care for him. He used to ring the police saying his car had been stolen, someone had taken all his money or equally interesting stories. Small country town where everyone knew everyone, so the cops would ring me and I'd have to go looking for the location of where he had driven the car and then forgotten, and walked home. Yes, I tried to get his licence and car taken off him, but the police, the rest of the family and his health carers all said "he will be lost without it". Until the day he drove it into an (empty) pram beside a cafe...
When he died his 3 daughters wanted everything split equally, so they spent quite a bit of time making sure that happened. Right down to the antique encyclopaedia set that used to take pride of place above the fireplace. "Beth gets A-H, Jean, you take I-O and I'll have the rest..." Not even joking.
I believe that there's a rule to the effect of if an heir dies within a certain amount of time after the deceased, they would not collect as they normally would under the will. Or perhaps it's only for intestate individuals? Any wills and estates attorneys on here, let me know if I'm remembering that correctly. I remember hearing something about it bar prep, but haven't done any wills and estates work. I thought it was something like if husband and wife both get in a car accident and husband dies, and then wife dies within 48 hours, wife's heirs would not inherit pursuant to his will.
Not that that's relevant to your story since it worked out well, but just food for thought!
We're working through a "but X needs it more" situation at present, but with a slight twist.
DW's parents are both still with us, but they're doing some estate planning and DW, being the financially stable sibling, has been included in the conversation. My BIL is a walking financial disaster. Good guy, but some poor career decisions, bankruptcy, divorce, and a tendency to spend on things because he "deserves" them have all taken their toll. He and his young son have now moved back "home" with the in-laws. He has an OK job, but is basically living paycheck to paycheck. Anyway... the in-laws have come to the conclusion that they have assisted BIL more than DW, and want to correct that going forward. They are obsessed with making all financial things "even."
Our argument to them is - BIL needs it more. We don't need their money. We're FI. We have everything we want and need. If the in-laws aren't going to spend the money on themselves, then they should give it to BIL. If you don't give BIL enough money to correct his situation (set aside the debate as to whether or not he actually WOULD use it for that...) then his financial care falls on us when the in-laws are gone. Despite our frustrations with some of BIL's decisions, we're not so cold hearted that we're going to allow a sibling and nephew to live in poverty. We would prefer that my in-laws give him the money, and that way we're left out of it. Unfortunately the in-laws see it differently, and care of my BIL and nephew is going to fall squarely on our shoulders after they pass.
We're working through a "but X needs it more" situation at present, but with a slight twist.
DW's parents are both still with us, but they're doing some estate planning and DW, being the financially stable sibling, has been included in the conversation. My BIL is a walking financial disaster. Good guy, but some poor career decisions, bankruptcy, divorce, and a tendency to spend on things because he "deserves" them have all taken their toll. He and his young son have now moved back "home" with the in-laws. He has an OK job, but is basically living paycheck to paycheck. Anyway... the in-laws have come to the conclusion that they have assisted BIL more than DW, and want to correct that going forward. They are obsessed with making all financial things "even."
Our argument to them is - BIL needs it more. We don't need their money. We're FI. We have everything we want and need. If the in-laws aren't going to spend the money on themselves, then they should give it to BIL. If you don't give BIL enough money to correct his situation (set aside the debate as to whether or not he actually WOULD use it for that...) then his financial care falls on us when the in-laws are gone. Despite our frustrations with some of BIL's decisions, we're not so cold hearted that we're going to allow a sibling and nephew to live in poverty. We would prefer that my in-laws give him the money, and that way we're left out of it. Unfortunately the in-laws see it differently, and care of my BIL and nephew is going to fall squarely on our shoulders after they pass.
Racer, if you do get that money, perhaps set it aside to be used to help your brother? You can make that as formal or informal as you'd like.
We're working through a "but X needs it more" situation at present, but with a slight twist.
DW's parents are both still with us, but they're doing some estate planning and DW, being the financially stable sibling, has been included in the conversation. My BIL is a walking financial disaster. Good guy, but some poor career decisions, bankruptcy, divorce, and a tendency to spend on things because he "deserves" them have all taken their toll. He and his young son have now moved back "home" with the in-laws. He has an OK job, but is basically living paycheck to paycheck. Anyway... the in-laws have come to the conclusion that they have assisted BIL more than DW, and want to correct that going forward. They are obsessed with making all financial things "even."
Our argument to them is - BIL needs it more. We don't need their money. We're FI. We have everything we want and need. If the in-laws aren't going to spend the money on themselves, then they should give it to BIL. If you don't give BIL enough money to correct his situation (set aside the debate as to whether or not he actually WOULD use it for that...) then his financial care falls on us when the in-laws are gone. Despite our frustrations with some of BIL's decisions, we're not so cold hearted that we're going to allow a sibling and nephew to live in poverty. We would prefer that my in-laws give him the money, and that way we're left out of it. Unfortunately the in-laws see it differently, and care of my BIL and nephew is going to fall squarely on our shoulders after they pass.
Racer, if you do get that money, perhaps set it aside to be used to help your brother? You can make that as formal or informal as you'd like.
Regarding Economic Outpatient Care, I can see how it develops.
I have a kid with ASD and a neurotypical kid. We are already spending more resources on the ASD kid (private therapy lessons, etc) because he needs it more. Life will probably be harder for him as an adult because he lacks certain skills that DD has. At some point he will hopefully stand on his own two feet and manage his own life, but I can see how after 20 years of helping him along, it will be hard to transition to letting him navigate life on his own.
I see it mirrored somewhat in my H and his sister. His sister had/has ADHD as a child, and they tried medicating her but it did not work. As a child she got some special treatment because school was a lot harder for her. This is somewhat justified (see above comments about spending more on my own son) but MIL never transitioned to expecting more from SIL. And now at age 38, if MIL suddenly yanked all support, it would be a disaster, because she never let SIL fail while the stakes were lower.
MIL tried to pull the "you have to help SIL out once I am gone" on H, and he shut it down quick by telling her he would be ahppy to help her set up a trust for SIL. That is not what MIL meant, lol, so she dropped it. SIL is inheriting a considerably more valuable house than us (most of MIL's assets are houses that she rents out) because she "needs it more". Consensus is that she will not be able to pay the property taxes on the expensive house- once again MIL is doing her no favors by "helping" her. I don't care that SIL will get more*, I just hate that it will all be wasted. Oh well.
*most of the time I don't care. Sometimes I get really pissed on DH's behalf that his mother gives SIL 90% of her time and 60-70% of her resources.
Here's my drama--played out over the last few months.
So: Never will specific amounts to other people when you're married and your account doesn't have the money upon your death.
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
I love how you used the money!
We had a similar situation...
After my grandma had stroke, all of her jewelry suddenly went missing including her wedding ring. She had lots of nice jewelry too. We had no idea if it was taken or she'd hidden it or what but lots of nurses and therapists had been in the house as she was getting in home care, plus grandpa had done some renovations, so lots of strangers around. And grandma couldn't really talk after her stroke...
Afte months of having no idea what happened to all of her jewelry, one day grandpa pulled a blanket out of the bedroom closet and all of her jewelry came flying out from the folds of the blanket. Grandma was apparently nervous someone would try to steal it. Oh grandma. 😀
He then took out a line of credit to pay off me and the rest to the one brother.
We were at a small family party last week, or two weeks ago, I think there were only 7 cousins there, and we were talking about how weird it was that a lot of folks we know don't hang out and have fun with their families. Then my cousin had the point: We were the weird ones.The other day my wife was like oh it's so good of you that you don't mind if my mom stays with us, all my friends can't stand their in-laws and could never live together, and I was like, ah, but how annoying are they? And she said "oh that's a good point."
The thing I don't understand is how parents can be so obtuse with these things. Can they not see the emotional damage they are wreaking? I love what my mom and stepfather have done: with my mom's two and my stepfather's three kids, they have said that they plan to split everything 5 ways. Plain and simple. If one goes before the other, I guess that could potentially change, but given who they are, how they live, and how generous and kind they are, I doubt it. And if so, so what? We are all grown ups and don't "deserve" anything.
I think most people do, but they rationalise it away as one son being emotionally hurt as a lesser evil than their other son actually starving/becoming homeless in retirement. Even when the starvation/homelessness/whatever is entirely self-inflicted.
In the Millionaire Next Door books the author talks about how wealthy parents can inadvertantly 'weaken' one child with what he called 'economic outpatient care'. EOC involved subsidising the child's lifestyle and perversely rewarding their bad behaviour.
He then took out a line of credit to pay off me and the rest to the one brother.
What a mess. Will he take back the $40k to pay off the LOC, now that everything in the will is settled? He might protest if you offer it as a gift but you could always tell him to leave it to you in his own will (if his estate has it; at least by then he'll have no use for it) or call it a loan (whether you charge interest or ever collect on it - meh.) Will a bank accept a payment on a LOC if the payment isn't made by the debt holder?
At least there was no nasty family fighting (that you mentioned), but it's awful your father lost his wife and simultaneously needed to cough up almost $50k that he didn't just have lying around (and now has interest expense he has to pay.)
e.g. She gave him money once as he had to take a week's unpaid leave to sort out his car insurance - seriously, wtf?
MIL now 92, in early stages of dementia and BIL looking after her at home - and doing a good job of it. Her will (I've seen it) leaves house to BIL and money to OH.
A friend's mom passed away recently and I just got this story from her.
Friend had lived with her mom for about 25 years, mostly supporting Mom in exchange for help raising friend's daughter and general household stuff. Mom got a small SS check that she contributed towards the household but otherwise had no money. Mom's health had been declining over the last few years but she was diagnosed in December with pancreatic cancer. Bro and sis hadn't spent any time (or money) taking care of Mom for the last ten years and friend didn't expect any help from them now.
Friend spent whatever small amount of savings she had buying stuff for her mom that wasn't covered by medicare like a recliner to sleep in the living room because mom couldn't do stairs anymore and couldn't breathe while lying flat. As Mom got sicker friend took a leave from work to take care of her (couldn't afford a caregiver). Her daughter also came over every night and weekend to help.
When it became clear that Mom had hours left to live, bro and sis show up. Bro was actually helpful but sis - who owns four houses, each professionally decorated and landscaped and has a high-powered job - went through friend's house taking things she thought should be hers. Sis was actually screaming at friend about stuff she couldn't find while mom lay in the living room in the hospital bed (from hospice) gasping for air.
I don't even understand how someone could do that...
A friend's mom passed away recently and I just got this story from her.
Friend had lived with her mom for about 25 years, mostly supporting Mom in exchange for help raising friend's daughter and general household stuff. Mom got a small SS check that she contributed towards the household but otherwise had no money. Mom's health had been declining over the last few years but she was diagnosed in December with pancreatic cancer. Bro and sis hadn't spent any time (or money) taking care of Mom for the last ten years and friend didn't expect any help from them now.
Friend spent whatever small amount of savings she had buying stuff for her mom that wasn't covered by medicare like a recliner to sleep in the living room because mom couldn't do stairs anymore and couldn't breathe while lying flat. As Mom got sicker friend took a leave from work to take care of her (couldn't afford a caregiver). Her daughter also came over every night and weekend to help.
When it became clear that Mom had hours left to live, bro and sis show up. Bro was actually helpful but sis - who owns four houses, each professionally decorated and landscaped and has a high-powered job - went through friend's house taking things she thought should be hers. Sis was actually screaming at friend about stuff she couldn't find while mom lay in the living room in the hospital bed (from hospice) gasping for air.
I don't even understand how someone could do that...
So, one sister was stealing items from the other sister's home? Sorry, but if my sister did that, she'd quickly find herself arrested.
A friend's mom passed away recently and I just got this story from her.
Friend had lived with her mom for about 25 years, mostly supporting Mom in exchange for help raising friend's daughter and general household stuff. Mom got a small SS check that she contributed towards the household but otherwise had no money. Mom's health had been declining over the last few years but she was diagnosed in December with pancreatic cancer. Bro and sis hadn't spent any time (or money) taking care of Mom for the last ten years and friend didn't expect any help from them now.
Friend spent whatever small amount of savings she had buying stuff for her mom that wasn't covered by medicare like a recliner to sleep in the living room because mom couldn't do stairs anymore and couldn't breathe while lying flat. As Mom got sicker friend took a leave from work to take care of her (couldn't afford a caregiver). Her daughter also came over every night and weekend to help.
When it became clear that Mom had hours left to live, bro and sis show up. Bro was actually helpful but sis - who owns four houses, each professionally decorated and landscaped and has a high-powered job - went through friend's house taking things she thought should be hers. Sis was actually screaming at friend about stuff she couldn't find while mom lay in the living room in the hospital bed (from hospice) gasping for air.
I don't even understand how someone could do that...
So, one sister was stealing items from the other sister's home? Sorry, but if my sister did that, she'd quickly find herself arrested.
I suggested that. She's more of the mindset that letting it all go would be a) what her mom would have wanted, and b) the quickest way to recover her own piece of mind. Unlikely that she'll be speaking to her sister any time soon.
For some, that's best achieved through brushing it off, forgiving, and moving on with that person removed from their lives.
For others (like me)... cross the line and we're talking burn-the-bridge, salt-the-earth level policies. And once we're done, I will sleep soundly... but the forgive and forget method just leaves me feeling like that person is gonna come back and get worst until handled appropriately.
Probably a difference in formative years... :)
He's living rent and board free with her and gets a carers allowance, plus it's UK so no medical costs. I need to look into the pension situation - I think he'll get national insurance contributions credited as he's a carer. He's never had any other pension arrangements and till he moved in with her wasMIL now 92, in early stages of dementia and BIL looking after her at home - and doing a good job of it. Her will (I've seen it) leaves house to BIL and money to OH.
That could put BIL on the short end of the stick, actually.
Caregiving for an adult with dementia is a brutal full-time job and it can drag on for years. Hopefully he is being compensated for it in a timely fashion instead of having to wait, so that he can take care of his own living and medical expenses. From what you've said he isn't the most financially responsible person, but the fact he's doing in-home caregiving means there's an enormous opportunity cost to him.
It's incredible how awful people can be.
The worst part is when they say "it's mine, I deserve it"
Shut up, you just won the lottery, at least don't act like you had the moral right to.
Personally the only thing I hope is that I inherit whatever it will be as late as possible.
When we were prepping for the estate sale (our mom passed 12 years earlier) we had to argue over who was MADE to take some items. :) Things that held sentimental value but none of us saw a real pressing need to have. It was some good natured bickering and everything worked out well. Somehow I became keeper of the photos even though I'm hardly in any of them! I truly appreciate that although we may have had little disagreements during the wrap up phase, we were all committed to the end result of us still being a family and not letting any money/item get in the way of that. We'd seen how it destroyed our Dad's family when siblings did things behind the backs of others.
Both siblings have families and I'm sure there were better uses for it than giving it to her. I'm really sick about it.
Both siblings have families and I'm sure there were better uses for it than giving it to her. I'm really sick about it.
I know it doesn't feel good, but your siblings made the decision that their relationship with Mom was worth that money. That was their decision to make.
You could offer some of your inheritance to them because you feel bad about it, but I don't think second-guessing their decision is going to help matters.
They never knew or cared where the pictures went as far as I know.
They never knew or cared where the pictures went as far as I know.
You might be describing me. I'm just not very sentimental when it comes to historical stuff that is family related. My parents have a TON of stuff that is saved that they can't seem to part with. Even though they have no idea who are in the pictures, they still can't bear to part with it.
On the other hand I like things spare and clean. I can't stand having gobs of stuff sitting around.
When I was in high school, me, dad, and a bunch of extended family all went to my grandparent's house to move them out of it and into senior housing. This was badly needed for them. There was some family taking things home that they wanted. I'm not privy to everything, but there is some bad feelings over this.
At the time, absolutely no one in that family cared about genealogy. So all the old papers, pictures, etc I thought were at risk of being tossed out. My mom does genealogy as a hobby, so I'd grown up with you keep this sort of thing, even though it's not my hobby. So I took every photo album, boxes of pictures, boxes of slides, boxes of old 16mm film, and the slide projector and film projector. There was a TON of it. At the time, I kinda made an announcement at dinner, we were all sitting and eating, and I just told them that I was collecting all that sort of thing and would keep it together and safe. Ok.
Every couple years, someone asks about it, and once again I tell them I grabbed it. Last night, my aunt posts a picture from a few years ago that's the 3 kids, and as a joke I posted one of them and their grandparents from when they were kids. She'd never seen the picture. So I posted another one, taken a year or two later. My aunt facebook im'ed me, asking where I got them. So I told her, I'd scanned some of the pictures in. Honestly, I'd done more cleaning up and sorting of the physical pictures than actual scanning. I sent her all the pictures I have, about 60mg worth.
This family... sheesh. She'll forget again in a month or two, and ask again in a few years.
However, due to the other wackiness in the family - I'm not giving up these items. Sheer spite. I'll send copies, but I'm keeping the originals. No if, ands, or buts. I don't care how much I piss people off - they've earned it. Maybe they should treat my family like a member of the wider family if they don't like it.
Oh, and grandparents died while I was in college. They never knew or cared where the pictures went as far as I know.
Not precisely inheritance drama, but there is an estate sale involved.
When my grandma passed, my mom and uncle held an estate sale. Everything that looked remotely like somebody might want to buy it spilled out of the house into the front lawn.
My uncle was speaking with a customer discussing the price of a fairly nice looking pottery jar. As he's collecting the cash, my mom walks out of the house. Her eyes bulge and she screams, "You can't sell that!"
"Why not?"
"THAT'S MOM!!!"
Sadly, my uncle passed last year. But there were jovial discussions of selling his ashes at his own estate sale.
Not precisely inheritance drama, but there is an estate sale involved.
When my grandma passed, my mom and uncle held an estate sale. Everything that looked remotely like somebody might want to buy it spilled out of the house into the front lawn.
My uncle was speaking with a customer discussing the price of a fairly nice looking pottery jar. As he's collecting the cash, my mom walks out of the house. Her eyes bulge and she screams, "You can't sell that!"
"Why not?"
"THAT'S MOM!!!"
Sadly, my uncle passed last year. But there were jovial discussions of selling his ashes at his own estate sale.
Don't leave us hanging - did they go through with the sale?As far as I know, grandma is still with our family.
After my FIL died, we realized DH's mom had what turned out to be Alzheimer's. They had two homes, so we cleaned out their weekend home first. I noticed a nightstand had some grossness dribbled down one side, so I moved it to clean it up. Found a pouch full of cash underneath. Later, found more cash in the linen closet. On day two of the Estate Sale, I moved a lamp and found a couple hundred more underneath. God knows how much we missed, but what we found came to about $11 grand, plus we made about $2.5k more on the estate sale. They were huge garage salers, so we probably got back as much as they spent to furnish the house.Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
I love how you used the money!
We had a similar situation...
After my grandma had stroke, all of her jewelry suddenly went missing including her wedding ring. She had lots of nice jewelry too. We had no idea if it was taken or she'd hidden it or what but lots of nurses and therapists had been in the house as she was getting in home care, plus grandpa had done some renovations, so lots of strangers around. And grandma couldn't really talk after her stroke...
Afte months of having no idea what happened to all of her jewelry, one day grandpa pulled a blanket out of the bedroom closet and all of her jewelry came flying out from the folds of the blanket. Grandma was apparently nervous someone would try to steal it. Oh grandma. 😀
LOL! Both of these are great stories. They make me so happy!
After my FIL died, we realized DH's mom had what turned out to be Alzheimer's. They had two homes, so we cleaned out their weekend home first. I noticed a nightstand had some grossness dribbled down one side, so I moved it to clean it up. Found a pouch full of cash underneath. Later, found more cash in the linen closet. On day two of the Estate Sale, I moved a lamp and found a couple hundred more underneath. God knows how much we missed, but what we found came to about $11 grand, plus we made about $2.5k more on the estate sale. They were huge garage salers, so we probably got back as much as they spent to furnish the house.
True story: they used to take the train to this house. They'd walk to the grocery store across from the train station and then walk the mile or so to the house. People were always offering to buy them groceries. Yes, there was a car in the garage of their nice 1800 sf weekend house, and clearly plenty of mobey, but they looked poor, so people made assumptions. My MIL is still alive, and her estate is worth about 2.5 million. Crazy.
A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
Typically, children are well into middle age or nearing retirement themselves, and "need" it less than grandchildren (obviously this varies greatly by families). Receiving, say, $50,000 at 55 vs 25 is completely different. That's why many choose to partially or entirely skip a generation.A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
I think states follow two main schools of thought if someone dies intestate (with no will) and a spouse is not inheriting/has predeceased.
1. Divide the money at the first generation (each sibling gets 1/2, they can pass their 1/2 on to kids, giving grandkid of A 1/2 the estate and grandkids of B 1/14 each, or not).
2. Focus on ultimate number of lineal descendants (here, 8) and divide accordingly.
Why would the family be focusing on grand kids and not just giving to the two children?
A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Totally disagree. 50% to each child. If one child is dead then their children split the child's 50%.A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Agreed. Obviously the inheritance can be weighed based on the relationship or on need -- whatever the grandparents want -- but this way would seem to be the most fair if all other factors excluded. Child A's kid got 100% of the parental attention and resources growing up. It's not unfair to have the share equally (for once) with other kids.
A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Sounds exactly wrong to me. Why should one kid's family be impoverished just because their sibling decided to pop out more kids?
If I had asymmetric grandchildren, I might give them each a little token (like $5k for their college funds) but the bulk of my estate would be split evenly between my kids. Except in my particular case I also have step-kids, which complicates things even further because they may also inherit from their biological father.
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.Sounds exactly wrong to me. Why should one kid's family be impoverished just because their sibling decided to pop out more kids?
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Sounds exactly wrong to me. Why should one kid's family be impoverished just because their sibling decided to pop out more kids?
If I had asymmetric grandchildren, I might give them each a little token (like $5k for their college funds) but the bulk of my estate would be split evenly between my kids. Except in my particular case I also have step-kids, which complicates things even further because they may also inherit from their biological father.
A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Agreed. Obviously the inheritance can be weighed based on the relationship or on need -- whatever the grandparents want -- but this way would seem to be the most fair if all other factors excluded. Child A's kid got 100% of the parental attention and resources growing up. It's not unfair to have the share equally (for once) with other kids.
Yeah, but do you then act all surprised more than 10 years later that someone has photos you don't have and ask for copies?
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Sounds exactly wrong to me. Why should one kid's family be impoverished just because their sibling decided to pop out more kids?
If I had asymmetric grandchildren, I might give them each a little token (like $5k for their college funds) but the bulk of my estate would be split evenly between my kids. Except in my particular case I also have step-kids, which complicates things even further because they may also inherit from their biological father.
My response was accepting the assumption of "skipping" the inheritance directly to the grandkids. But actually, if that could be discarded I would be in favor of your solution of dividing things equally among the children. That seems even more sensible to me.
Oh good, a place to rant. :-)
Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings.
After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh! Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
OK, rant over.
Careful, having few or no siblings cuts both ways especially when the parents start getting older. When the parents need help there is no dividing the costs (time and monetary) up among many siblings. Just because they were an only child does not guarantee they got more resources growing up.
Not sure there can be a good universal rule here, in each family you need to look at the specifics and make judgement calls on what is best and what can be done with what is available.
Why should one kid's family be impoverished just because their sibling decided to pop out more kids?That's the attitude I dislike about inheritance drama. The attitude that NOT being GIFTED an inheritance is "impoverishing" you. You either already are or aren't impoverished, by luck or life choices. Inheritance surely can help, but at the cost of the life of your loved one.
As for skipping generations when dolling out inheritance. My parent's and their siblings have all managed to blow through hundreds of thousands in inheritance, we're talking really stupid materialism, and when they all die won't leave much. It doesn't bother me, but from a neutral point of view it seems kind of a shitty thing to do.Nope, it's the total size of the estate that triggers the federal estate tax. Doesn't matter if it's left to one heir or fifty. A co (mon strategy, however, is to give tax-free gifts to everyone before death to reduce the size of the estate. Obviously that only works if you have liquid-ish assets to gift. Not practical for estates where the main source of wealth is from a primary residence.
The reason very wealthy skip generations? If the estate is large enough ($5 million+ in the US?,) you can avoid transfers of wealth being taxed on death by willing portions to the grand kids.
Example:
Grandparent has $10m in assets.
If they give the it all to the Parent anything over 5 million is taxed at a high rate. It will be taxed again when the Parent gives it to the Grandkid.
If they give $5M to Parent and $5M to the Grandkid. When the Parent dies they've avoided paying the death tax twice on the original wealth.
At least... I believe that's how that works.
As for skipping generations when dolling out inheritance. My parent's and their siblings have all managed to blow through hundreds of thousands in inheritance, we're talking really stupid materialism, and when they all die won't leave much. It doesn't bother me, but from a neutral point of view it seems kind of a shitty thing to do.Nope, it's the total size of the estate that triggers the federal estate tax. Doesn't matter if it's left to one heir or fifty. A co (mon strategy, however, is to give tax-free gifts to everyone before death to reduce the size of the estate. Obviously that only works if you have liquid-ish assets to gift. Not practical for estates where the main source of wealth is from a primary residence.
The reason very wealthy skip generations? If the estate is large enough ($5 million+ in the US?,) you can avoid transfers of wealth being taxed on death by willing portions to the grand kids.
Example:
Grandparent has $10m in assets.
If they give the it all to the Parent anything over 5 million is taxed at a high rate. It will be taxed again when the Parent gives it to the Grandkid.
If they give $5M to Parent and $5M to the Grandkid. When the Parent dies they've avoided paying the death tax twice on the original wealth.
At least... I believe that's how that works.
Gotcha. I see the reasoning now.As for skipping generations when dolling out inheritance. My parent's and their siblings have all managed to blow through hundreds of thousands in inheritance, we're talking really stupid materialism, and when they all die won't leave much. It doesn't bother me, but from a neutral point of view it seems kind of a shitty thing to do.Nope, it's the total size of the estate that triggers the federal estate tax. Doesn't matter if it's left to one heir or fifty. A co (mon strategy, however, is to give tax-free gifts to everyone before death to reduce the size of the estate. Obviously that only works if you have liquid-ish assets to gift. Not practical for estates where the main source of wealth is from a primary residence.
The reason very wealthy skip generations? If the estate is large enough ($5 million+ in the US?,) you can avoid transfers of wealth being taxed on death by willing portions to the grand kids.
Example:
Grandparent has $10m in assets.
If they give the it all to the Parent anything over 5 million is taxed at a high rate. It will be taxed again when the Parent gives it to the Grandkid.
If they give $5M to Parent and $5M to the Grandkid. When the Parent dies they've avoided paying the death tax twice on the original wealth.
At least... I believe that's how that works.
It's the transfer of the wealth from the Parent to the Grandkid when the Parent dies, that they'd be avoiding the taxes on. Not the initial estate distribution from the Grandparent. I wish I could be more clear on my example but I'm sick and tired. I'll hopefully be off in dreamland shortly.
The lawyer that settled the estate said, the bank account was hers. Her name on the account, her money. As for the house, I still own 1/2 of it, yes, I could force a sale and get her out and end up with $25k or $30k. Then my sister who has nothing , (by her own choices) will not even have a home to live in. She has spent time living in a van with her girlfriend.Oh good, a place to rant. :-)
Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings.
After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh! Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
OK, rant over.
No, actually, it doesn't. She may have had the right to access it, but she didn't have the right to steal it. The estate didn't go through probate, and it's not legally "her" house even though she's living in it. I recommend you see a good estate lawyer who may also recommend filing a criminal complaint.
On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
Careful, having few or no siblings cuts both ways especially when the parents start getting older. When the parents need help there is no dividing the costs (time and monetary) up among many siblings. Just because they were an only child does not guarantee they got more resources growing up.
Actually, I think skipping the children's generation and dividing directly into grandkids is odd. But I do think it is fair to divide whatever you are going to leave specifically to grandkids evenly among grandkids. Those children themselves will receive a greater or smaller inheritance from their OWN parents based on sibling number.
Why WOULD you skip the children, especially if they will need help in retirement? If they absolutely need no help (multimillionaires), then why would the single grandkid need more money than the multiple cousins?
The lawyer that settled the estate said, the bank account was hers. Her name on the account, her money. As for the house, I still own 1/2 of it, yes, I could force a sale and get her out and end up with $25k or $30k. Then my sister who has nothing , (by her own choices) will not even have a home to live in. She has spent time living in a van with her girlfriend.Oh good, a place to rant. :-)
Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings.
After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh! Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
OK, rant over.
No, actually, it doesn't. She may have had the right to access it, but she didn't have the right to steal it. The estate didn't go through probate, and it's not legally "her" house even though she's living in it. I recommend you see a good estate lawyer who may also recommend filing a criminal complaint.
On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
I have thought about forcing it to go to my heirs when she dies, but it my just be a nuisance
for them to have a property 1000+ miles away.
No real drama here, just wall of shame material. My grandparents passed away and distributed their estate of approximately $300k equally to their 4 children. One of them who is woefully inept with money decided to "retire" after receiving this "life changing amount" ($75,000). He left a pretty decent custodial job and proceeded to buy a used motorhome and roadtrip south to Disney world, spent a few weeks, and road tripped to Disney Land. He then ran out of money, sold the motorhome, and had to buy a minivan to drive back in. He now commutes 45 minutes to work in a toll booth.
No real drama here, just wall of shame material. My grandparents passed away and distributed their estate of approximately $300k equally to their 4 children. One of them who is woefully inept with money decided to "retire" after receiving this "life changing amount" ($75,000). He left a pretty decent custodial job and proceeded to buy a used motorhome and roadtrip south to Disney world, spent a few weeks, and road tripped to Disney Land. He then ran out of money, sold the motorhome, and had to buy a minivan to drive back in. He now commutes 45 minutes to work in a toll booth.
No real drama here, just wall of shame material. My grandparents passed away and distributed their estate of approximately $300k equally to their 4 children. One of them who is woefully inept with money decided to "retire" after receiving this "life changing amount" ($75,000). He left a pretty decent custodial job and proceeded to buy a used motorhome and roadtrip south to Disney world, spent a few weeks, and road tripped to Disney Land. He then ran out of money, sold the motorhome, and had to buy a minivan to drive back in. He now commutes 45 minutes to work in a toll booth.
*slow clap* People just are not taught to process anymore. My little kiddo is going to be annoyed at me making her process big decisions. "But dad, why can't I just do what I want like my other friends? They have all that they want!"
I have an estranged Aunt and Uncle that took out credit cards to buy his & her compact VW Cabrio convertibles. They are both obese so they each needed their own, so everywhere they went, they drove their cars separately. I was 12 at the time and couldn't stop laughing when they tootled up to the house. Eventually they lost the cars to a title loan they had to take out so they could go on their annual trip to Disney World
I cringed so hard I threw my back out.
Yeah, but do you then act all surprised more than 10 years later that someone has photos you don't have and ask for copies?
Yep, but that's part of the fun, I think. I'm like you, I keep the stuff, organize it, keep it safe. Then every few years, I surprise the hell out of someone by pulling out an old photo and emailing it, just for the hell of it. It's great fun.
The lawyer that settled the estate said, the bank account was hers. Her name on the account, her money. As for the house, I still own 1/2 of it, yes, I could force a sale and get her out and end up with $25k or $30k. Then my sister who has nothing , (by her own choices) will not even have a home to live in. She has spent time living in a van with her girlfriend.Oh good, a place to rant. :-)
Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings.
After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh! Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
OK, rant over.
No, actually, it doesn't. She may have had the right to access it, but she didn't have the right to steal it. The estate didn't go through probate, and it's not legally "her" house even though she's living in it. I recommend you see a good estate lawyer who may also recommend filing a criminal complaint.
On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
I have thought about forcing it to go to my heirs when she dies, but it my just be a nuisance
for them to have a property 1000+ miles away.
QuoteJust having power of attorney over an account doesn't make the money hers. Unless they actually made it a joint account?
Joint account is how I understood it.QuoteYou may be able to solve the house problem by writing out a zero-interest mortgage for your share of the equity. She will now have control of 100% of the inheritance (which should thrill her since she's a dirty thief). But the house can't be sold without you getting paid off. Also, since you would no longer be the owner of the house, just the mortgage holder, you're not liable if someone trips on the sidewalk and sues.Yes, to you and Swordguy, the liability has been a thought on my mind.
Qmavan - when you have 2 million(congrats on this), your money should me making $25,000 every 3 or 4 months. Why in the world would you consume 4 YEARS of your life worrying about it? Would we consider this a reverse face punch?
Sign over your portion to your sister. Consider your mothers gift to you helping to prepare you for your success. That may have been by direct lessons from her, or just placing you in a place in your life to learn them much on your own. Your sister did not receive or accept that lesson for some reason. Maybe your strength to move 1000 miles away led to your success?
In a few months when you have made the money back, you won't give it a second though. Your concerns for your sisters well being will of course continue indefinitely.
Let us know how it goes.
We have a drama in progress. DW's grandfather passed away recently. Grandmother is still kicking at 90, but feeling old and alone. Their plan had always been to split the estate evenly between DW's father and uncle, their two children. Now, grandmother is thinking of leaving more to the uncle, "because he needs it more."
This is deepening a rift that started nearly fifty years ago when grandfather and grandmother paid for uncle's private college education, and then "didn't have enough" to pay for father's education, so he went to community college, and then on to finish up at the state school. DW's father started bagging groceries after college, and then eventually landed a public sector union job. Lots of hard and sometimes dangerous work, but through a long career, miserly frugality, and careful money management, DW's father amassed a nearly $2 million nest egg and DW's parents were able to retire in their mid to late fifties.
Meanwhile, DW's uncle worked in accounting, bought a nice house in the suburbs, furnished it respectably and impeccably, traveled to Hawaii regularly, and is still working in his early sixties. But grandmother may now give uncle more "because he needs it more".
The thing I don't understand is how parents can be so obtuse with these things. Can they not see the emotional damage they are wreaking? I love what my mom and stepfather have done: with my mom's two and my stepfather's three kids, they have said that they plan to split everything 5 ways. Plain and simple. If one goes before the other, I guess that could potentially change, but given who they are, how they live, and how generous and kind they are, I doubt it. And if so, so what? We are all grown ups and don't "deserve" anything.
Back to DW's grandfather, I hope we make it through the funeral this week without big drama. There are already other issues surfacing about the remembrance video...
DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.
DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.
This over and over and over... ;)
We have a good marriage, good income, stable careers, etc. Good kids, good home, etc. We don't NEED them and that is likely a key problem.
DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.
This over and over and over... ;)
On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
It doesn't sound like she is ever going to change. I would give her a quit-claim deed and be done with it.
That also protects you if she gets a scuzzy boyfriend who gets doped up, trips and injures himself. You won't be the deep pockets on the deed to sue.
My family was rural, poor, Catholic, and large. At some point my grandfather and his brothers built a business. While my mom was a child they were very poor, but they had enough money to send the youngest to trade school.Sadly, this lovely step-grandmother of mine just passed last weekend. She didn't outlive the nasty uncle, and the second nasty uncle and his wife. She almost made it to 98.
Eventually the business did well, and I'd say my grandparents were worth about a million, a lot of money in my home town. One of my brothers was working the business also, so he got his inheritance (part of the business) while alive. The trust/ will set up was to divide the money left in the business (when it was sold) between the boys. The house (worth a lot less), would be sold and proceeds would go to the girls.
Well, my grandmother died in her early 60's, and my grandfather remarried within a year. This caused a rift. He traveled quite a bit with grandma, but that upset some aunts/ uncles with the new wife because he's spending their inheritance. My grandpa worked very hard. His new wife? Raised 11 children essentially on her own and also worked very hard. Wonderful woman (and my grandpa would not have done well single).
Anyway, my grandfather died in his 80's (17 years ago), and at that point, he'd been married to his second wife for more than 15 years. After the funeral, my uncle called my mom (the executor) and wanted to know WHEN HE WAS GETTING HIS MONEY BECAUSE HE'S WAITED HIS WHOLE LIFE FOR HIS MONEY (probably $250k). My grandpa was not even buried yet.
Here's the thing - the trust was set up so that his second wife could live off the interest of the trust - AND THE PRINCIPAL IF NECESSARY, until she dies. She didn't really need much - she has a pension from working at the library while raising her family, plus social security. When they married, she kept her house and eventually moved back into it.
Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago. She's 97. Still living. AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt. That uncle? Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.
DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.
This over and over and over... ;)
I'm a young adult who has mildly antimustachian family, and crazy insane antimustachian in-laws, and I thank my parents every day for being sensible people, and my dad for pointing things out and using them as "teachable moments". Both to teach us better money management and decision making, and as a "everyone is different, and you must treat them with respect, but don't do what they do!" moments.
It doesn't sound like she is ever going to change. I would give her a quit-claim deed and be done with it.
On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
Thoughts?You don't mention this, but are you are each leaving enough money to maintain current living/retirement standards to the other in the first instance? Another thing you don't mention is friends: I have some lifelong friends that I have left reasonably significant amounts to.
I don't even know who the executor is, because when my grandpa died, it was my mom. And my mom died 4 years ago.Sorry for you loss. And my further sympathies to the executor(s) of the trust and any further will.My family was rural, poor, Catholic, and large. At some point my grandfather and his brothers built a business. While my mom was a child they were very poor, but they had enough money to send the youngest to trade school.Sadly, this lovely step-grandmother of mine just passed last weekend. She didn't outlive the nasty uncle, and the second nasty uncle and his wife. She almost made it to 98.
Eventually the business did well, and I'd say my grandparents were worth about a million, a lot of money in my home town. One of my brothers was working the business also, so he got his inheritance (part of the business) while alive. The trust/ will set up was to divide the money left in the business (when it was sold) between the boys. The house (worth a lot less), would be sold and proceeds would go to the girls.
Well, my grandmother died in her early 60's, and my grandfather remarried within a year. This caused a rift. He traveled quite a bit with grandma, but that upset some aunts/ uncles with the new wife because he's spending their inheritance. My grandpa worked very hard. His new wife? Raised 11 children essentially on her own and also worked very hard. Wonderful woman (and my grandpa would not have done well single).
Anyway, my grandfather died in his 80's (17 years ago), and at that point, he'd been married to his second wife for more than 15 years. After the funeral, my uncle called my mom (the executor) and wanted to know WHEN HE WAS GETTING HIS MONEY BECAUSE HE'S WAITED HIS WHOLE LIFE FOR HIS MONEY (probably $250k). My grandpa was not even buried yet.
Here's the thing - the trust was set up so that his second wife could live off the interest of the trust - AND THE PRINCIPAL IF NECESSARY, until she dies. She didn't really need much - she has a pension from working at the library while raising her family, plus social security. When they married, she kept her house and eventually moved back into it.
Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago. She's 97. Still living. AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt. That uncle? Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.
I'd like to have more stories of how the distribution of the trust rolls out, but I live 2500 miles away.
Maybe my sister will give me the dirt if she hears it.
Thoughts?You don't mention this, but are you are each leaving enough money to maintain current living/retirement standards to the other in the first instance? Another thing you don't mention is friends: I have some lifelong friends that I have left reasonably significant amounts to.
I hope it is unlikely that your DH's mother would survive him: if I were you I might be more worried about having to support his mother while you are both alive than after DH's death.
Any chance you could get to know DH's niece and nephew at some point? Find out what they are like as people and whether or not you like them?
I don't see anything wrong with your proposed distribution among the family. I wonder whether your concern is that BIL might react badly? To which the only answer is: you will be dead enough not to care. You can protect the executor by putting in a clause saying that anyone who contests the will gets nothing.
I guess this is inheritance-related...
My cousin, who lives with my aunt, got married. She couldn't afford her own place, so my aunt bought a $2 million apartment for them. Oh, and then hired a maid to help them clean the place. But I digress.
The inheritance ridiculousness is that my aunt then promptly bought $2 million apartments for each my cousin's siblings because "it wouldn't be fair for my cousin to get a condo and for the others to get nothing". Did I mention that none of the siblings live in the country in which the condos were purchased? My aunt has already purchased for them condos in the respective cities in which they live, but not ones worth $2 million, so therefore, it is still unfair unless they all get condos that cost the same price in the same building.
Sometimes I just have to shake my head in disbelief...
I guess this is inheritance-related...
My cousin, who lives with my aunt, got married. She couldn't afford her own place, so my aunt bought a $2 million apartment for them. Oh, and then hired a maid to help them clean the place. But I digress.
The inheritance ridiculousness is that my aunt then promptly bought $2 million apartments for each my cousin's siblings because "it wouldn't be fair for my cousin to get a condo and for the others to get nothing". Did I mention that none of the siblings live in the country in which the condos were purchased? My aunt has already purchased for them condos in the respective cities in which they live, but not ones worth $2 million, so therefore, it is still unfair unless they all get condos that cost the same price in the same building.
Sometimes I just have to shake my head in disbelief...
Holy crap. Sometimes I get glimpses of this sort of wealth through my clients, but that is intense.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?You don't mention this, but are you are each leaving enough money to maintain current living/retirement standards to the other in the first instance? Another thing you don't mention is friends: I have some lifelong friends that I have left reasonably significant amounts to.
I hope it is unlikely that your DH's mother would survive him: if I were you I might be more worried about having to support his mother while you are both alive than after DH's death.
Any chance you could get to know DH's niece and nephew at some point? Find out what they are like as people and whether or not you like them?
I don't see anything wrong with your proposed distribution among the family. I wonder whether your concern is that BIL might react badly? To which the only answer is: you will be dead enough not to care. You can protect the executor by putting in a clause saying that anyone who contests the will gets nothing.
I should have mentioned this in my post, but we'd be first leaving everything to each other, should one spouse outlive the other. This is the back up to that, and the longer term plan.
Getting to know the N&N is not really possible. BIL doesn't have an especially large role in their life for various reasons--some it fault and some not,-- though certainly he does seem them and presumably love them. And we are about to move back overseas for 3 years, so there is little chance we'll see them at all during that time.
I definitely do worry about MIL's financial situation, and I certainly hope DH and I outlive her, but I think he wants to include her lest that not happen.
Apparently Prince died without a will. I anticipate inheritance drama.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/prince-no-will/
I lost my mom to cancer when I was a toddler and father married the step-mom-from-hell three years later. She worked tirelessly to turn my dad against my sister and I, to the point where (in his eyes) everything we did was wrong, wrong, wrong.
The male equivalent to the evil stepmother is either the pervo stepfather who molests the kids, or the abusive wingnut who beats the stuffing out of them.I gotta say, while I'm not a general fan of Dr. Laura - she lives locally, and used to be on the radio on my way home from work (irony there, listening to Dr. Laura on my way to pick up my kid from daycare).
Sadly, children are more likely to be abused or even murdered by Mommy's new romantic interest than by any other person.
I had an evil step family too, and I totally sympathize. It was me vs. step-mom, step-grandma, and 4 older step-siblings. Step-sibs wanted something, it was, "Prove you're willing to be a father figure." I wanted something, it was, "Quit babying her/playing favorites."
Fortunately, step-mom was scamming my dad, planning from the beginning to have him pay for her kids' private school and then divorce him and take every dime she could get away with. So I only had to suffer for 5 years or so. Plus 15 years crippling self-esteem and anxiety issues, but eh. That which doesn't kill you, or whatever.
Evil Step-mom here!I wouldn't call a step-mom evil just for being a step-mom. I also had a non-evil step-mom. (My dad married 5 times; my mom was wife #2 [and in a twist, was maid of honor at #1's wedding]. Evil step-mom was #3. #4 was also #5 and not evil during either stint. His current girlfriend of over a decade refuses to marry him--smart woman. She and I get along swimmingly.) But my evil step-mom was absolutely evil. Not only scamming my dad, but doing everything in her power (with the help of her hellspawn) to intentionally shatter my self confidence and any stability in my life.
This has been a fantastic discussion to follow as it has made me realize that we need to make some adjustments to my husband's will as each of his kids age out of their mother's home to include a percentage of his estate instead of leaving everything to me to distribute appropriately. That way, its clear that they got what their dad wanted them to have, and it isn't me "short-changing" them, or "buying" their love with money.
And in defense of the evil step mom....some of us really just want to be mom 2.0; someone a kid can come to love, trust, confide in, and maybe even need a little. Sometimes mom 1.0 makes that really hard and can make the kids feel like loving mom 2.0 is wrong and disloyal. So to all you Mom 1.0's out there, please encourage your kids to love their stepmom's as much as possible. You will never be replaced, but its awesome for a kid to not feel like he/she has to pick sides.
(prances off to encourage DH to adjust his will)
Did she actually succeed in scamming your dad? It's a shame if she did.
My dad married 5 times; my mom was wife #2 [and in a twist, was maid of honor at #1's wedding].
My dad married 5 times; my mom was wife #2 [and in a twist, was maid of honor at #1's wedding].
My step father was the best man when my parent's got married! I love telling people that when I am explaining my family. (Also - my step mother was my father's secretary at one time...we hit all the cliches).
I have a non-evil step mother. And a non-evil step father. I am EXTREMELY lucky in the parents and step-parents department - four good ones.
My dad married 5 times; my mom was wife #2 [and in a twist, was maid of honor at #1's wedding].
My step father was the best man when my parent's got married! I love telling people that when I am explaining my family. (Also - my step mother was my father's secretary at one time...we hit all the cliches).
I have a non-evil step mother. And a non-evil step father. I am EXTREMELY lucky in the parents and step-parents department - four good ones.
Ooh, does that mean you had 8 grandparents? My mom was my dad's secretary when he and #1 split, so I can check that box too!
I sometimes wish my mom had remarried (I'm confident that she has better taste than my father); I think she would have been happier. But she was burnt too badly by my dad to even date.
This whole discussion just makes me want to give you all internet hugs. Such a great community...now, back to the drama please!Thanks for the hugs!! You sound like a great step-mom. And yes, I know - and admire - many blended families that are working things out in an exemplary manner. We just happened to get the shit end of the stick, but then again Dad was no trip to the big leagues, nor was he a paragon of virtue ... just a bitter old man by the time he remarried (I was born when my parents were in their 40's ... very, very old in many ways for the "Mad Men" era, but not today).
This whole discussion just makes me want to give you all internet hugs. Such a great community...now, back to the drama please!
No kidding! There is no love for the step-mom's of the world! At least as a serpent I could bite in self defense; as a step-mom, just have to grin and bear it.This whole discussion just makes me want to give you all internet hugs. Such a great community...now, back to the drama please!
Step-CheapskateWife seems like a very nice Step-person, I congratulate her!
On the other hand ..."Better a serpent than a stepmother!" Euripides
The posts about rationale for dividing up estates among differing generations and relationships were quite timely. DH and I are doing our wills in a couple weeks and trying to figure out a plan, and we are disagreeing.
We have no kids, but we each having a living parent or parents (one of his and both of mine), one sibling each, and 2 niece/nephews on his side.
A large % of the estate will go to a charity. Easy. He feels obligated to give something to the niece and nephew, not because he is close to them (we aren't close at all), but because he thinks it would be "weird not to". I disagree. I'm expecting (terrible word, but you hopefully know what I mean) nothing from any of aunts an uncles. It doesn't seem abnormal at all not to send money that way, though admitedly they all have kids to leave things to and we don't. These children are relative strangers to us, due to family drama, divorce, other messy things, and also to us living overseas for most of their lives thus far. And because DH and his family have never been emotionally close to each other.
My solution is that of the non-charity money, we each "get" 50% to allocated as we see fit. My parents have more money than they know what to do with. My sister and BIL (no kids) are very well off, but somewhat spendypants. I am sure they have savings and retirement so they are better off than most, but will probably not be able to RE, though my guess is that at ~60, they will have more than enough. I'd leave them all of the "my side" money, because I don't know where else I'd send it and because Sister will be our executor and dealing with some of the ILs warrants some compensation beyond the typical executor fee. ;) He would likely leave some to his mom who makes very solid money, but also spends most or all of it, as far as we can tell and shows no signs of ever being able to retire. Some would go to BIL, but for various reasons, leaving him large sums of money would be a bad idea, and the rest of that "side" would go to niece and nephew. DH can determine the %s as he sees fit.
My family will not care what we do. They are reasonable, sane people who are either great with money or at least not desperate or greedy.
Does this seem like a recipe for disaster? It could see my sibling getting 50% of the non-charity portion, and DH's sibling only getting 20% (or some other amount <50%). 50/50 among them is a bad idea, and it doesn't allow DH to help his mom, which he'd like to do. Leaving money to my parents to make it equal to what goes to MIL would be weird and silly. Thoughts?
I have a non-evil step mom but it took quite a few years to figure that out. My (much) older sister firmly believes our step mom is evil and had me convinced for several years. I wised up and went neutral on the subject until my dad died a couple of years ago. At that point the actions of my sister showed me who was truly "evil".
I might have already mentioned this on here a long while back, but in case I didn't, here's a pro tip that I learned from unfortunate personal experience with a family member's estate: PUT SOMETHING IN YOUR WILL THAT PREVENTS STUFF GOING TO AN ADULT ADOPTEE.I'm not quite sure why this is a concern. You have money and leave it to a relative (let's say nephew). Isn't it his now? When he dies, wouldn't it now be part of his estate and go to whom his will dictates? So what if he wants to leave his stuff to a drunken friend? What if he had a feckless son? Would you try to take back what you willed beyond the grave?
I might have already mentioned this on here a long while back, but in case I didn't, here's a pro tip that I learned from unfortunate personal experience with a family member's estate: PUT SOMETHING IN YOUR WILL THAT PREVENTS STUFF GOING TO AN ADULT ADOPTEE.I'm not quite sure why this is a concern. You have money and leave it to a relative (let's say nephew). Isn't it his now? When he dies, wouldn't it now be part of his estate and go to whom his will dictates? So what if he wants to leave his stuff to a drunken friend? What if he had a feckless son? Would you try to take back what you willed beyond the grave?
Once you give a gift, doesn't it belong to the recipient?
I might have already mentioned this on here a long while back, but in case I didn't, here's a pro tip that I learned from unfortunate personal experience with a family member's estate: PUT SOMETHING IN YOUR WILL THAT PREVENTS STUFF GOING TO AN ADULT ADOPTEE. Heirs sometimes adopt adults who are friends of theirs, lovers, whatever, solely to make that friend/lover/whatever inherit property from someone else. For instance, let's say granny leaves money in trust for a son; let's say she did it that way instead of just leaving the money for him to spend at will because he's terrible with money and she wanted to make sure his basic expenses would be covered so he wouldn't just waste all the money and end up in the gutter.
If you do this, any competent estate planner will have you also specify what happens to any money that's left in the trust if the beneficiary (the terrible-with-money son) dies. And if what you put is something along the lines of "the money goes to my descendants" (i.e. it gets split between your kids and/or grandkids, including any kids of the son), guess what? All your dissolute son has to do is adopt a friend of his and boom, a proportional chunk of your money will go to that random friend of his, diminishing the amount that goes to your kids/grandkids/etc. This works whether he adopts the friend before or after your death.
If your will is interpreted under Colorado law that won't happen, AFAIK, because Colorado law makes people who are adopted as adults the heirs of their adoptive parent(s) but not the legal relatives of anyone else in the family (only people adopted as children become relatives of the entire family). But in every other state whose law I'm familiar with, adult adoption works like regular adoption: it makes the adoptee a legal relative of the entire family, so any references in wills or trusts to descendants, children, grandchildren, etc., include that person. If you google it, you'll see a few court cases where the dissolute heirs of ultra-rich families adopted some random friend or lover to try and rope them into the fortune. It's not at all what the person making the will intended, but it's what happens.
I might have already mentioned this on here a long while back, but in case I didn't, here's a pro tip that I learned from unfortunate personal experience with a family member's estate: PUT SOMETHING IN YOUR WILL THAT PREVENTS STUFF GOING TO AN ADULT ADOPTEE.I'm not quite sure why this is a concern. You have money and leave it to a relative (let's say nephew). Isn't it his now? When he dies, wouldn't it now be part of his estate and go to whom his will dictates?
Listing specific people makes it very clear that any future kids, natural or adopted or whatever, don't change things.
This is interesting because, as mentioned upthread, my grandfather died decades ago and left a trust to his children, but not to be disbursed until his second wife died (which she did, just recently). I got a packet yesterday mentioning that I get 1/7 of what's left after my uncles get 1/3. And...I can't figure out that math. My math tells me that it should be 1/12. Because my mom would have gotten 1/4 of the remaining (but she died first), and she has 3 kids.I might have already mentioned this on here a long while back, but in case I didn't, here's a pro tip that I learned from unfortunate personal experience with a family member's estate: PUT SOMETHING IN YOUR WILL THAT PREVENTS STUFF GOING TO AN ADULT ADOPTEE.I'm not quite sure why this is a concern. You have money and leave it to a relative (let's say nephew). Isn't it his now? When he dies, wouldn't it now be part of his estate and go to whom his will dictates?
Not if you leave it in trust, as in the example I gave. When you create a trust, you dictate who the beneficiary is and what happens to the money. Normally the interest, or the interest and some very small part of the principal, goes to the beneficiary and the only time major chunks of the principal can be paid out is for necessary expenses you define (medical care, education, etc.). The reason people do this can be because the beneficiary is terrible with money, or too old/incapacitated to deal with money, or is handicapped and you want to ensure they have money for major medical expenses for however long they live. Stuff like that.
And because you don't know how long the beneficiary will live, you have to dictate what happens to any remaining money if the beneficiary dies before it's all spent. You will probably want that remaining money to go to the people and/or charities of your choice. But if you set it up to go to "your descendants" or "your grandchildren" or any other defined group of relatives, which is usually how it's set up when it's not all going to charity, a relative of yours can do an adult adoption to bring in someone you never had any intention of giving it to. It could even bring in someone you specifically intended to disinherit. For instance, if you left it to "your descendants," a child of yours could adopt their girlfriend to make her one of your descendants, and then they get two shares of the money instead of just the one share you meant each of your children to get.
This is interesting because, as mentioned upthread, my grandfather died decades ago and left a trust to his children, but not to be disbursed until his second wife died (which she did, just recently). I got a packet yesterday mentioning that I get 1/7 of what's left after my uncles get 1/3. And...I can't figure out that math. My math tells me that it should be 1/12. Because my mom would have gotten 1/4 of the remaining (but she died first), and she has 3 kids.
But one of my aunts also died. And she has 3 kids. There are 2 living aunts. So I just can't come up with 1/7 in any way, shape, or form. My mom was the executor when my grandfather passed, so I'm going to chalk it up to my bad memory, or my just not understanding it all.
Listing specific people makes it very clear that any future kids, natural or adopted or whatever, don't change things.
Listing specific people means that if they die before you, you have to go in and change your will, unless you put something in your will for that contingency (i.e. said who gets the money if they predecease you).
I'm voting bad with fractions!This is interesting because, as mentioned upthread, my grandfather died decades ago and left a trust to his children, but not to be disbursed until his second wife died (which she did, just recently). I got a packet yesterday mentioning that I get 1/7 of what's left after my uncles get 1/3. And...I can't figure out that math. My math tells me that it should be 1/12. Because my mom would have gotten 1/4 of the remaining (but she died first), and she has 3 kids.
But one of my aunts also died. And she has 3 kids. There are 2 living aunts. So I just can't come up with 1/7 in any way, shape, or form. My mom was the executor when my grandfather passed, so I'm going to chalk it up to my bad memory, or my just not understanding it all.
I would ask the trustee. I'm not entirely clear, but it sounds like your grandfather had 6 children? (You said "uncles", your mother, one deceased aunt and two living aunts.) If so, then wouldn't each child get 1/6 and if the child had predeceased the step-mother, their heirs would split their share?
It could be that your grandfather designed the math to be funky, or it could be that the trustee is really bad with fractions.
In any event, the trust folks can figure it out. By my calculation, it's about $5000, so I'm not going to sweat it. While it's nice to have the money, it means we'll have to file state taxes in TWO states for the year, whenever it all gets disbursed, which is a PITA.
In any event, the trust folks can figure it out. By my calculation, it's about $5000, so I'm not going to sweat it. While it's nice to have the money, it means we'll have to file state taxes in TWO states for the year, whenever it all gets disbursed, which is a PITA.
Why will you have to file in TWO states? Did the estate have a business? You don't claim inheritance as income. Just curious.
In any event, the trust folks can figure it out. By my calculation, it's about $5000, so I'm not going to sweat it. While it's nice to have the money, it means we'll have to file state taxes in TWO states for the year, whenever it all gets disbursed, which is a PITA.
Why will you have to file in TWO states? Did the estate have a business? You don't claim inheritance as income. Just curious.
Straight inheritance: you are correct. But it's unclear what is in the trust. Some entities do create a taxable event. For example, annuities. Also, since this has been sitting in a trust for a while, I would assume even things like stocks are going to be taxable if sold. The basis would have been established on date of death. They could have increased in value since then.
Grandpa got a cancer scare when I was ~14 and didn't want the guns in the house anymore (suicidal?). They were given to me for safe keeping, until I was old enough to keep them for real (huh?).So....he doesn't like guns, but he's upset that he didn't get them? Something doesn't add up here.
25 years later (grandpa passed 10 years ago), I found out that the pro gun control uncle has been pissed for 25 years that I have them. To his credit, he's hid it well (unless the relative who spilled the beans is making up stories). I offered to give them up on the condition that they come back to me. I was rebuffed, so it may all be a misunderstanding.
If you rant about the inappropriateness of firearms in homes, why would you be mad at being deprived of firearms in your home?
If you rant about the inappropriateness of firearms in homes, why would you be mad at being deprived of firearms in your home?Possibly because you want the chance to take them out of circulation by destroying them, or you want to sell them off and get the money they represent, which is its own kind of twisted.
.
Grandpa got a cancer scare when I was ~14 and didn't want the guns in the house anymore (suicidal?). They were given to me for safe keeping.....
I found out that the pro gun control uncle has been pissed for 25 years that I have them.
.
Grandpa got a cancer scare when I was ~14 and didn't want the guns in the house anymore (suicidal?). They were given to me for safe keeping.....
I found out that the pro gun control uncle has been pissed for 25 years that I have them.
Is it possible he thought the decision to give guns to a 14-year-old was inappropriate? I could see how someone could be concerned. That's right at the beginning of the rebellious, reckless years and also when a lot of people go through periods of depression. Maybe not. You know him, and I just read a paragraph about him in a post. I was trying to put a positive spin on it, because, yeah, otherwise it's just odd.
Why will you have to file in TWO states? Did the estate have a business? You don't claim inheritance as income. Just curious.
Straight inheritance: you are correct. But it's unclear what is in the trust. Some entities do create a taxable event. For example, annuities. Also, since this has been sitting in a trust for a while, I would assume even things like stocks are going to be taxable if sold. The basis would have been established on date of death. They could have increased in value since then.
Is it possible he thought the decision to give guns to a 14-year-old was inappropriate? I could see how someone could be concerned. That's right at the beginning of the rebellious, reckless years and also when a lot of people go through periods of depression. Maybe not. You know him, and I just read a paragraph about him in a post. I was trying to put a positive spin on it, because, yeah, otherwise it's just odd.
Finally, the house was ready. They sold it. But, Oops! Medicaid came after the proceeds! Medicaid took it all! My friend, very bossy and a know it all, didnt know it all about Medicaid and her father's estate. She got nothing and was actually OUT money for repairs, as were her siblings. Wait, she DID gain something: a whole lot of acrimony from her siblngs.
This is more like pre-inheritance drama, related to me by my cousin.What. The. Hell.
My cousin's FIL arranges a meeting with the adult children and their spouses and his lawyer to brief the children on the FIL's estate plan. It's complicated but well planned. FIL uses vague numbers but it becomes obvious to my cousin and his siblings that there is likely to be a pretty nice sized inheritance for each child. The children aren't financial whizzes so there's really nothing to discuss, it's just FIL and the lawyer explaining the big picture so the children are aware. FIL wraps up his explanation, politely asking if there are any questions.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
My cousin said the lawyer jumped right in using that politician's tactic of appearing to answer a question but instead just talking in generalities and that diffused the tension. After the meeting broke up, my cousin approached the lawyer and thanked him for handling that awkward moment so effectively, and the lawyer said, "I've heard that question asked dozens of times just that way, and I'm always ready just in case."
Crazy.
This is more like pre-inheritance drama, related to me by my cousin.What. The. Hell.
My cousin's FIL arranges a meeting with the adult children and their spouses and his lawyer to brief the children on the FIL's estate plan. It's complicated but well planned. FIL uses vague numbers but it becomes obvious to my cousin and his siblings that there is likely to be a pretty nice sized inheritance for each child. The children aren't financial whizzes so there's really nothing to discuss, it's just FIL and the lawyer explaining the big picture so the children are aware. FIL wraps up his explanation, politely asking if there are any questions.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
My cousin said the lawyer jumped right in using that politician's tactic of appearing to answer a question but instead just talking in generalities and that diffused the tension. After the meeting broke up, my cousin approached the lawyer and thanked him for handling that awkward moment so effectively, and the lawyer said, "I've heard that question asked dozens of times just that way, and I'm always ready just in case."
Crazy.
I wonder if the estate plans suddenly got amended that day.
This is more like pre-inheritance drama, related to me by my cousin.What. The. Hell.
My cousin's FIL arranges a meeting with the adult children and their spouses and his lawyer to brief the children on the FIL's estate plan. It's complicated but well planned. FIL uses vague numbers but it becomes obvious to my cousin and his siblings that there is likely to be a pretty nice sized inheritance for each child. The children aren't financial whizzes so there's really nothing to discuss, it's just FIL and the lawyer explaining the big picture so the children are aware. FIL wraps up his explanation, politely asking if there are any questions.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
My cousin said the lawyer jumped right in using that politician's tactic of appearing to answer a question but instead just talking in generalities and that diffused the tension. After the meeting broke up, my cousin approached the lawyer and thanked him for handling that awkward moment so effectively, and the lawyer said, "I've heard that question asked dozens of times just that way, and I'm always ready just in case."
Crazy.
I wonder if the estate plans suddenly got amended that day.
No, but as it turned out that marriage broke up a couple years later, so the spouse who asked that question is now out of the picture. Probably unrelated to that crass question, there were other issues apparently.
This is more like pre-inheritance drama, related to me by my cousin.What. The. Hell.
My cousin's FIL arranges a meeting with the adult children and their spouses and his lawyer to brief the children on the FIL's estate plan. It's complicated but well planned. FIL uses vague numbers but it becomes obvious to my cousin and his siblings that there is likely to be a pretty nice sized inheritance for each child. The children aren't financial whizzes so there's really nothing to discuss, it's just FIL and the lawyer explaining the big picture so the children are aware. FIL wraps up his explanation, politely asking if there are any questions.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
My cousin said the lawyer jumped right in using that politician's tactic of appearing to answer a question but instead just talking in generalities and that diffused the tension. After the meeting broke up, my cousin approached the lawyer and thanked him for handling that awkward moment so effectively, and the lawyer said, "I've heard that question asked dozens of times just that way, and I'm always ready just in case."
Crazy.
I wonder if the estate plans suddenly got amended that day.
No, but as it turned out that marriage broke up a couple years later, so the spouse who asked that question is now out of the picture. Probably unrelated to that crass question, there were other issues apparently.
Unreasonable expectations from in-laws can be a symptom of other kinds of unreasonable behavior.
This is more like pre-inheritance drama, related to me by my cousin.What. The. Hell.
My cousin's FIL arranges a meeting with the adult children and their spouses and his lawyer to brief the children on the FIL's estate plan. It's complicated but well planned. FIL uses vague numbers but it becomes obvious to my cousin and his siblings that there is likely to be a pretty nice sized inheritance for each child. The children aren't financial whizzes so there's really nothing to discuss, it's just FIL and the lawyer explaining the big picture so the children are aware. FIL wraps up his explanation, politely asking if there are any questions.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
My cousin said the lawyer jumped right in using that politician's tactic of appearing to answer a question but instead just talking in generalities and that diffused the tension. After the meeting broke up, my cousin approached the lawyer and thanked him for handling that awkward moment so effectively, and the lawyer said, "I've heard that question asked dozens of times just that way, and I'm always ready just in case."
Crazy.
I wonder if the estate plans suddenly got amended that day.
No, but as it turned out that marriage broke up a couple years later, so the spouse who asked that question is now out of the picture. Probably unrelated to that crass question, there were other issues apparently.
Unreasonable expectations from in-laws can be a symptom of other kinds of unreasonable behavior.
This would be a brilliant reversed Joe Millionaire tactic! Pretend you're loaded, see how people react and when you finally find The One (who doesn't give a rat's ass about inheritance), you reveal that you're just Average Joe.
I would say I'd pay to watch that, but you guys know better...
This is more like pre-inheritance drama, related to me by my cousin.What. The. Hell.
My cousin's FIL arranges a meeting with the adult children and their spouses and his lawyer to brief the children on the FIL's estate plan. It's complicated but well planned. FIL uses vague numbers but it becomes obvious to my cousin and his siblings that there is likely to be a pretty nice sized inheritance for each child. The children aren't financial whizzes so there's really nothing to discuss, it's just FIL and the lawyer explaining the big picture so the children are aware. FIL wraps up his explanation, politely asking if there are any questions.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
My cousin said the lawyer jumped right in using that politician's tactic of appearing to answer a question but instead just talking in generalities and that diffused the tension. After the meeting broke up, my cousin approached the lawyer and thanked him for handling that awkward moment so effectively, and the lawyer said, "I've heard that question asked dozens of times just that way, and I'm always ready just in case."
Crazy.
I wonder if the estate plans suddenly got amended that day.
No, but as it turned out that marriage broke up a couple years later, so the spouse who asked that question is now out of the picture. Probably unrelated to that crass question, there were other issues apparently.
Unreasonable expectations from in-laws can be a symptom of other kinds of unreasonable behavior.
This would be a brilliant reversed Joe Millionaire tactic! Pretend you're loaded, see how people react and when you finally find The One (who doesn't give a rat's ass about inheritance), you reveal that you're just Average Joe.
I would say I'd pay to watch that, but you guys know better...
Wasn't there a reality TV show with that theme once?
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
I thought I didn't have a story for here, but have realized I do.We totally love our kids responsible spouses, but when we redid our will my lawyer strongly suggested not mentioning or involving them in any way, shape or form. Gift the inheritance to the kids, and "peace out". If they choose to co mingle the money into their family finances, that is a decision best left up to them. He told us several stories of other clients but the story above is the gist of them. Also told my kids to expect the same from their spouses- not a shared asset until they declare it so.
When my MIL and FIL died I was left nothing, the estate went to my husband and his siblings. I didn't expect anything, why would they leave anything to spouses? And he decided what to do with the money.
When my father died my DH (now Ex) was all pissed because he was left nothing, after all the things he had done (basically cottage opening and closing and maintenance, from which we definitely benefited). Huh? You did what family does, you contributed and benefited, why should there be money? And he had lots of ideas about what to do with my inheritance. So what is yours is yours, but what is mine is (y)ours? Interesting attitude there.One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
I signed some kind of document that stated I have no claim on my father in law's trust, as did all spouses of his children. It was fine with me, no big deal.I thought I didn't have a story for here, but have realized I do.We totally love our kids responsible spouses, but when we redid our will my lawyer strongly suggested not mentioning or involving them in any way, shape or form. Gift the inheritance to the kids, and "peace out". If they choose to co mingle the money into their family finances, that is a decision best left up to them. He told us several stories of other clients but the story above is the gist of them. Also told my kids to expect the same from their spouses- not a shared asset until they declare it so.
When my MIL and FIL died I was left nothing, the estate went to my husband and his siblings. I didn't expect anything, why would they leave anything to spouses? And he decided what to do with the money.
When my father died my DH (now Ex) was all pissed because he was left nothing, after all the things he had done (basically cottage opening and closing and maintenance, from which we definitely benefited). Huh? You did what family does, you contributed and benefited, why should there be money? And he had lots of ideas about what to do with my inheritance. So what is yours is yours, but what is mine is (y)ours? Interesting attitude there.One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
I have another family inheritance drama. Long story, I hope I can simplify a little.
This one is about four older siblings and how their wills are set up.
I have another family inheritance drama. Long story, I hope I can simplify a little.
This one is about four older siblings and how their wills are set up.
This sounds like s classic example of the age old conflict between per capita and per stirpes distribution.
I think grandkids should butt out, in virtually every scenario. You are "entitled" to nothing.
I have another family inheritance drama. Long story, I hope I can simplify a little.
This one is about four older siblings and how their wills are set up.
This sounds like s classic example of the age old conflict between per capita and per stirpes distribution.
I think grandkids should butt out, in virtually every scenario. You are "entitled" to nothing.
See, I think the in-laws should butt out. They're less "entitled" to anything than the niece/nephews. Adam and Denise made a decision that they would pass along their estate(s) to the niece/nephews in equal shares. Presumably because they wanted to be "fair" and give each one an equal part. Not half to CJ and quarters to Robert and Roberta.
I have another family inheritance drama. Long story, I hope I can simplify a little.
This one is about four older siblings and how their wills are set up.
This sounds like s classic example of the age old conflict between per capita and per stirpes distribution.
I think grandkids should butt out, in virtually every scenario. You are "entitled" to nothing.
See, I think the in-laws should butt out. They're less "entitled" to anything than the niece/nephews. Adam and Denise made a decision that they would pass along their estate(s) to the niece/nephews in equal shares. Presumably because they wanted to be "fair" and give each one an equal part. Not half to CJ and quarters to Robert and Roberta.
Long time lurker, first time poster here since I have a story to contribute to this awesome thread.
complete shitshow
Long time lurker, first time poster here since I have a story to contribute to this awesome thread.
complete shitshow
Sounds like they got exactly what they deserve. I feel bad for your mother, though.
I hope I never have something for this thread. I had a call from my parents several months ago. They have many years to go, but are making plans should anything be left. I'm the youngest of 6 kids and they put me in charge of the trust. Wonder how that will go over when everyone else finds out....
I hope I never have something for this thread. I had a call from my parents several months ago. They have many years to go, but are making plans should anything be left. I'm the youngest of 6 kids and they put me in charge of the trust. Wonder how that will go over when everyone else finds out....
I hope I never have something for this thread. I had a call from my parents several months ago. They have many years to go, but are making plans should anything be left. I'm the youngest of 6 kids and they put me in charge of the trust. Wonder how that will go over when everyone else finds out....
I would encourage your parents to be up front about it and tell everyone now, so they can hear it from mom and dad instead of mom and dad's lawyer. My parents have made my sister the executor and they were very upfront about that. (I'm not at all upset. I trust my sister and it's generally a pain in the ass job, with little reward.) But the point is that my parents sat us down together, went over the basics of their estate, which bank has the safe deposit box, and a few other details, and told us, together. The news is going to go over much better that way, and if someone feels inclined to argue his case for begin executor instead, he has a chance to do it (though in most cases he'd be an ass for doing so). These things are always much worse when they are surprises. Ask mom and dad to please let everyone know.
I hope I never have something for this thread. I had a call from my parents several months ago. They have many years to go, but are making plans should anything be left. I'm the youngest of 6 kids and they put me in charge of the trust. Wonder how that will go over when everyone else finds out....
I would encourage your parents to be up front about it and tell everyone now, so they can hear it from mom and dad instead of mom and dad's lawyer. My parents have made my sister the executor and they were very upfront about that. (I'm not at all upset. I trust my sister and it's generally a pain in the ass job, with little reward.) But the point is that my parents sat us down together, went over the basics of their estate, which bank has the safe deposit box, and a few other details, and told us, together. The news is going to go over much better that way, and if someone feels inclined to argue his case for begin executor instead, he has a chance to do it (though in most cases he'd be an ass for doing so). These things are always much worse when they are surprises. Ask mom and dad to please let everyone know.
I agree, this caused a shitstorm when my father, the youngest of 4, turned out to be the executor.
I thought I didn't have a story for here, but have realized I do.
When my MIL and FIL died I was left nothing, the estate went to my husband and his siblings. I didn't expect anything, why would they leave anything to spouses? And he decided what to do with the money.
When my father died my DH (now Ex) was all pissed because he was left nothing, after all the things he had done (basically cottage opening and closing and maintenance, from which we definitely benefited). Huh? You did what family does, you contributed and benefited, why should there be money?
Yeah, different circumstances. Opening and closing (the heavy duty stuff) were group effort, all hands on deck. We did more regular maintenance than my sister and her family, but we used the cottage a lot more too. Actually, I did a lot of the general maintenance (things like cutting the grass) since I was there more than Ex. General expenses were evenly split.I thought I didn't have a story for here, but have realized I do.
When my MIL and FIL died I was left nothing, the estate went to my husband and his siblings. I didn't expect anything, why would they leave anything to spouses? And he decided what to do with the money.
When my father died my DH (now Ex) was all pissed because he was left nothing, after all the things he had done (basically cottage opening and closing and maintenance, from which we definitely benefited). Huh? You did what family does, you contributed and benefited, why should there be money?
Maybe he didn't deserve anything, I don't disagree, but let me tell you the flip side of that story: My wife (along with her 2 sisters) will be a 1/3rd beneficiary to a substantial inheritance, a large part of which is vacation properties. The properties are very maintenance intensive. The other two siblings don't use them as much as we do (one lives far away, the other just doesn't, and part of the reason we go there as much as we do is as a favor to my wife's parents) but we know all will be split evenly. As the inlaws age, there has been a push for the daughters (and their families) to start taking over some of the work on the properties. I've resisted as much as I politely can, because A) the other two families don't contribute much, if at all, and we already contribute some, and B) I will not be inheriting anything personally, and even if my wife rolls it in with our assets, I still won't be able to sell because of sentimentality and the three sisters will never agree to. So, basically, I would be setting a precedent of doing a lot of work so others could enjoy property I don't really have a stake in. I'm not interested in doing that. So I kinda see if your spouse was spending a lot of his free time maintaining something for everyone to enjoy, feeling a little screwed.
Wow - what a screwed up set of values our elders had back then. Boys vs girls, basically considered them different species, the different races, etc.
Clearly the sexes are different in obvious ways (personalities, priorities, etc) but I have never seen a reason to make women take a back seat to the men except in feats of physical strength.
I hope humanity always continues to evolve....
OMG Bobberth, that's a rough story. i'd suggest auctioning the land..and if the boys want to buy it (together even), they can.
I know a situation that has none of the abuse or meanness, but all of the the-boys-should-get-the-land stuff. The irony is, none of the boys outlived the grandmother, so if there had actually been a will (instead of the 'understanding that boys inherit'), daughter-in-laws would have inherited all of the 'family' land.
Wow - what a screwed up set of values our elders had back then. Boys vs girls, basically considered them different species, the different races, etc.Yeah, I guess in my home town, the girls were supposed to be taken care of by their husbands.
Clearly the sexes are different in obvious ways (personalities, priorities, etc) but I have never seen a reason to make women take a back seat to the men except in feats of physical strength.
I hope humanity always continues to evolve....
My Mom's family is going to be a 'best of' the worst parts of this thread when my Grandmother finally passes. My Mom is the oldest girl (third kid) out of 13 kids. 8 girls, 5 boys. One of the boys died of cancer in the 90s. My Grandparents are/were terrible people. Beat their kids with leather belts to the point where it's not, 'back in my day you spanked your kids' but actual, full-on abuse. Girls are/were worthless. At least the youngest 4 girls were sexually molested by family. It's still pretty hush-hush so I'm not sure if it was an older brother or uncle or cousin or even a bit of all three. I think my Mom escaped as she was either too old or too big as she is a big-boned, muscular, German Woman. Grandma wouldn't do anything about it because she didn't want to cause a scene in a small town and girls weren't valuable enough to get into that. At Christmas I go back and ask my Grandma how she is doing, "I'm doing good. I have THREE BOYS WHO TAKE GOOD CARE OF ME." Raising her voice so everybody around her can hear. Never mind that my Aunt took 2 weeks off work to stay with her while she was sick and has driven her to all her doctors appointments for years or that other Aunts come and bring her food or clean her house for her. It's a farm family so the boys take care of the cows and that is what matters most. The only good thing I can say about my Grandma is that she would run interference for my Mom and Aunts and let them know when my Grandpa was coming in the house because if he caught any of the girls reading a book or studying for school, he would beat them with the leather belt. Not only were the boys greatly favored over the girls, the 4 blonde haired boys were preferred over the one dark haired boy, who was still way better than any of the girls. Not a big fan of my Grandparents but I'm sure I'm jaded a bit by my Mom's view on all of this because she was more of a mother to her sisters at a young age and took care of them and was there to comfort them after being abused than their actual Mother was. I'm an only child as my Mother had already raised a family.Wow! That's a hard story to read and comprehend. Sorry your Mom lives it.
With it being a farm family, most of the wealth is tied up in the farmhouse, land, cattle and machinery. Cattle and machinery can be sold easily. The problem is going to be the land. Lots of farming families want to keep the land in the family. The boys feel like it should stay in the family since they have worked it all their lives, so they should just get it. They forget that the girls were out working the land as well, then had to come, prepare the food, clean up, and then go back out to the fields as well. Take the land away from the estate, there isn't going to be much left over for the girls if it's divided that way. If it's forced to sale to make it a fair split, the boys are going to be pissed because that was the family land. It's a standoff. There is no way for the estate to be split without half the family being pissed off. Nobody knows for sure what the will says. There are rumors that Grandma said, "It's not what people are expecting." Well, the boys are expecting all the land. Some of the boys may even be expecting more than just an even split of the land for themselves. And the girls are expecting things to be even. And nobody knows what will happen with the share of the one brother that already passed. Nobody even knows for sure who the executor(s) are.
I'm betting the land is going to the boys. They've been favored this long, why not keep the abuse up even after death? My Grandfather was a cheapskate, too miserly to be called Mustachian. A couple years before he died, he bought his first brand-new anything, a John Deere tractor. Despite having plenty of shed space a their place, he decided to store it at two of the boys' houses (one lives across the fence line, 1/4 mile drive out and around, and the other 1/4 mile down the road). A couple of my Great Aunts died recently and between initial inventory and the dividing of things out, valuable items (jewelry, gold and silver coins) went missing after some of the boys showed up. They've been favored for too long for my Grandmother to see anything else. Time will tell. My Grandmother is getting more frail and really shouldn't be living by herself in that farm house any more, so it could be sooner rather than later.
The sad part of this is the family part. One Thanksgiving get together my Grandmother was pissed because so many were going to their in-laws that she said, "If only 75 people are going to be here, why even have it!" It's a huge family and it's fun to go back a couple times a year as there is perpetually a baby, toddlers and kids of every age as there are so many different stages of life in the family, somebody is constantly having a baby. It's going to be torn to shreds once my Grandmother is gone and the money fight commences.
My Mom's family is going to be a 'best of' the worst parts of this thread when my Grandmother finally passes. My Mom is the oldest girl (third kid) out of 13 kids. 8 girls, 5 boys. One of the boys died of cancer in the 90s. My Grandparents are/were terrible people. Beat their kids with leather belts to the point where it's not, 'back in my day you spanked your kids' but actual, full-on abuse. Girls are/were worthless. At least the youngest 4 girls were sexually molested by family. It's still pretty hush-hush so I'm not sure if it was an older brother or uncle or cousin or even a bit of all three. I think my Mom escaped as she was either too old or too big as she is a big-boned, muscular, German Woman. Grandma wouldn't do anything about it because she didn't want to cause a scene in a small town and girls weren't valuable enough to get into that. At Christmas I go back and ask my Grandma how she is doing, "I'm doing good. I have THREE BOYS WHO TAKE GOOD CARE OF ME." Raising her voice so everybody around her can hear. Never mind that my Aunt took 2 weeks off work to stay with her while she was sick and has driven her to all her doctors appointments for years or that other Aunts come and bring her food or clean her house for her. It's a farm family so the boys take care of the cows and that is what matters most. The only good thing I can say about my Grandma is that she would run interference for my Mom and Aunts and let them know when my Grandpa was coming in the house because if he caught any of the girls reading a book or studying for school, he would beat them with the leather belt. Not only were the boys greatly favored over the girls, the 4 blonde haired boys were preferred over the one dark haired boy, who was still way better than any of the girls. Not a big fan of my Grandparents but I'm sure I'm jaded a bit by my Mom's view on all of this because she was more of a mother to her sisters at a young age and took care of them and was there to comfort them after being abused than their actual Mother was. I'm an only child as my Mother had already raised a family.
With it being a farm family, most of the wealth is tied up in the farmhouse, land, cattle and machinery. Cattle and machinery can be sold easily. The problem is going to be the land. Lots of farming families want to keep the land in the family. The boys feel like it should stay in the family since they have worked it all their lives, so they should just get it. They forget that the girls were out working the land as well, then had to come, prepare the food, clean up, and then go back out to the fields as well. Take the land away from the estate, there isn't going to be much left over for the girls if it's divided that way. If it's forced to sale to make it a fair split, the boys are going to be pissed because that was the family land. It's a standoff. There is no way for the estate to be split without half the family being pissed off. Nobody knows for sure what the will says. There are rumors that Grandma said, "It's not what people are expecting." Well, the boys are expecting all the land. Some of the boys may even be expecting more than just an even split of the land for themselves. And the girls are expecting things to be even. And nobody knows what will happen with the share of the one brother that already passed. Nobody even knows for sure who the executor(s) are.
I'm betting the land is going to the boys. They've been favored this long, why not keep the abuse up even after death? My Grandfather was a cheapskate, too miserly to be called Mustachian. A couple years before he died, he bought his first brand-new anything, a John Deere tractor. Despite having plenty of shed space a their place, he decided to store it at two of the boys' houses (one lives across the fence line, 1/4 mile drive out and around, and the other 1/4 mile down the road). A couple of my Great Aunts died recently and between initial inventory and the dividing of things out, valuable items (jewelry, gold and silver coins) went missing after some of the boys showed up. They've been favored for too long for my Grandmother to see anything else. Time will tell. My Grandmother is getting more frail and really shouldn't be living by herself in that farm house any more, so it could be sooner rather than later.
The sad part of this is the family part. One Thanksgiving get together my Grandmother was pissed because so many were going to their in-laws that she said, "If only 75 people are going to be here, why even have it!" It's a huge family and it's fun to go back a couple times a year as there is perpetually a baby, toddlers and kids of every age as there are so many different stages of life in the family, somebody is constantly having a baby. It's going to be torn to shreds once my Grandmother is gone and the money fight commences.
Not a story but a question that might help prevent a story in the future. My FIL and MIL own a business worth quite a bit. It is expected that the business will be passed down to the eldest son because he is the only one in the family to work there and runs it now. No drama on that, totally expected by all the children. The issue I forsee is that they also have a cottage near the shore that is in a very valuable location. FIL and MIL have just finished major renovations to it so that "no money needs to be spent on it for quite a while". All the children use this cottage in the summer for the respective family vacations. No one knows where this cottage goes for inheritance. Based on location, property taxes, utilities and upkeep are probably pretty expensive. Can a will give the cottage to the other sibling while requiring the eldest (who controls the significant income from the business) to be responsible for costs associated with it?
Just trying to think of ideas to head off drama. DW family has had lots of dram in the past and no one there likes to talk about money at all.
The house I live in was shared by 3 siblings as a holiday home for 20 years (their mother died, father remarried, new wife wanted to live elsewhere). It meant that the house was neglected for 20 years, because the siblings either couldn't agree on what money to spend or didn't have the time to do or organise anything (they all lived at least 200 miles away). There was also a rift between the siblings when eventually one forced its sale through against the wishes of the others. So I would strongly argue against any sort of shared inheritance. On the other hand, giving it to one person will create ill feeling, and making one person responsible for maintenance while others have the use of it will create even more.Not a story but a question that might help prevent a story in the future. My FIL and MIL own a business worth quite a bit. It is expected that the business will be passed down to the eldest son because he is the only one in the family to work there and runs it now. No drama on that, totally expected by all the children. The issue I forsee is that they also have a cottage near the shore that is in a very valuable location. FIL and MIL have just finished major renovations to it so that "no money needs to be spent on it for quite a while". All the children use this cottage in the summer for the respective family vacations. No one knows where this cottage goes for inheritance. Based on location, property taxes, utilities and upkeep are probably pretty expensive. Can a will give the cottage to the other sibling while requiring the eldest (who controls the significant income from the business) to be responsible for costs associated with it?
Just trying to think of ideas to head off drama. DW family has had lots of dram in the past and no one there likes to talk about money at all.
The cottage along with an amount of money for upkeep can be put into a trust with all children as beneficiaries. I don't think you could enforce a provision requiring Child A to pay for the upkeep if it's owned jointly by all children.
Or, the trust could be the cottage plus a share of the business, so a small amount of the business earnings pay for the upkeep.
Ah, family vacation homes. Apparently the cause of lots of inheritance drama. No inheritance drama of any kind in my family, but my BIL had a doosey.
There were 3 siblings: older sister, middle brother and younger brother (my BIL). When father died he left significant assets most of which were easily divisible. But there was a vacation cabin that older sister and younger brother both wanted. Sister thought she have first dibs bc she was oldest. She also though she should pay an apparently random figure that she thought it was worth. Younger brother guessed that it was worth 1/3 more and wasn't willing to let her have it just bc she was older.
There was briefly a proposal by older sister for all 3 to jointly own the cabin. That was a no-go. Younger brother had done all the work opening and closing the cabin for years (father died in his 90s) and wasn't willing do that for the rest of his life while sister got a free ride. He also knew that owning anything together would be a constant fight over everything.
Sister tried to drag the whole thing out with multiple calls to the attorney costing the estate money figuring eventually they would give in. Younger brother wouldn't give in. He had two proposals: both submit sealed bids on the property and highest bid gets it or get an appraisal to set value and then flip a coin. Eventually all three agreed agreed to flipping a coin. (Remember there is a middle brother who wasn't interested in owing the property.) Professional appraisal come in around where younger brother guessed and significantly more than older sister wanted to pay. When she lost the coin toss the real drama started! She cried to every one about losing the cabin. Her daughters called their cousins (younger brothers daughters) bc he was being mean to his sister. Older sister's daughters said they had fond memories of summers at the cabin (as if their younger cousins didn't!). Lots more pressure and drama that I don't recall the details of. But younger brother held fast...until middle brother retroactively decided that a coin toss wasn't the way to go. Sister had worked her magic on him and he was always the people pleaser.
At the point younger brother gave in and gave up the cabin. At least the estate got full value (it was actually in a trust). Younger brother bought another vacation cabin in a different area. I think everyone is speaking again but it was a tough couple of years.
These were grown ass people. Sister was probably 70 at the time and brothers in their 60s.
Sure, you can do that, but it's a fairly sure way to ensure drama. The people who are enjoying it now don't have to worry about upkeep or even treating it well, because it's never going to be theirs. The person paying for all of it doesn't get to enjoy it until someone else dies and they get what's left over at the end.Yep. I wasn't recommending it..especially for this scenario. deadlymonkey wanted to know if it was possible, and it is.
Remaindering was traditionally a good way for a man to pass property down to sons if his wife survived him; she would have a 'life estate' or a right to live on the property until she died, and it would automatically go to the sons after that without any danger that it would go to a new family if she re-married.
My mother has COPD and doesn't have much time left with us. She's accepted the fact. On Sunday, I'm going to my parents' house and sitting with her; she wants me to help her write her will. I'm hoping she'll keep it simple and no twists. Otherwise you'll get an update on inheritance drama.
Seriously - the lowest drama method is to give it away before you die. Want a family heirloom to go to someone special? Hand it to them while you can still remember who they are.
My grandparents gifted each grandkid some money for college, etc. I love the idea, because gifts to the kids generally aren't (or shouldn't be) necessary, and the grandkids will have the benefit of compound interest more than the kids.Seriously - the lowest drama method is to give it away before you die. Want a family heirloom to go to someone special? Hand it to them while you can still remember who they are.
I can see myself someday -- as I approach my personal expiration date -- gifting cash/stocks to my heirs which won't exceed the maximum exclusion amount ($14,000 in 2015). Even prior to that date -- for my nieces and nephews -- I'm considering offering them an IRA match to encourage them to save.
We're fortunate in that we have had no drama in my immediate family. My brother and I will be our parents' executors and the other siblings are fine with that. I even tried to get my father to exclude me from the inheritance (since I don't need the money), but he refused, thinking it would be unseemly.
I suppose being financially independent helps to insulate you from the inheritance drama. After lurking on this thread for the past few months, I realize how blessed our family has been to avoid the bad karma of fighting over an inheritance.
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?
Seriously - the lowest drama method is to give it away before you die. Want a family heirloom to go to someone special? Hand it to them while you can still remember who they are.
I can see myself someday -- as I approach my personal expiration date -- gifting cash/stocks to my heirs which won't exceed the maximum exclusion amount ($14,000 in 2015). Even prior to that date -- for my nieces and nephews -- I'm considering offering them an IRA match to encourage them to save.
We're fortunate in that we have had no drama in my immediate family. My brother and I will be our parents' executors and the other siblings are fine with that. I even tried to get my father to exclude me from the inheritance (since I don't need the money), but he refused, thinking it would be unseemly.
I suppose being financially independent helps to insulate you from the inheritance drama. After lurking on this thread for the past few months, I realize how blessed our family has been to avoid the bad karma of fighting over an inheritance.
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?When my Mom died, after things settled down, my sister and I went to our parents house and went through all Mom's things. Our Dad couldn't handle doing that, he wanted us to do it. We sorted everything, decided amiably about what went where (clothes, jewellery, etc.), took donations to the donation place, and left our Dad with a sense of peace. We didn't argue at all. We did the same after Dad died. Both parents had wills (nice clear ones), so this was more the personal stuff.
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?Yes. After my grandmother died, she split her money in half between her two kids. Seems fair at face value, but Those of us who saw the years of hard effort and sacrifice that my mom had put in to care for her bedridden mother knew the "even split" was not equitable. My mom never said a bitter word about it.
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?Here's to all the moms and dads that took an unfair situation and just let it die without telling their kids how poorly they had been treated. THATS the real gift of a kind and generous spirit!
In all honesty, you should feel grateful if there is "inheritance drama". Inheritance may as well be strange customs of an alien culture as far as the vast majority of people are concerned. My grandparents just died and they had retired to a trailer in Florida and then moved in with my aunt when they got too old and frail to take care of themselves anymore. No money to dish out. My family has ten children that were raised on one government employee income. I'm going to get jack squat when my father dies. If you have "inheritance drama", you are living the good life. Be thankful for it.
My mother has COPD and doesn't have much time left with us. She's accepted the fact. On Sunday, I'm going to my parents' house and sitting with her; she wants me to help her write her will. I'm hoping she'll keep it simple and no twists. Otherwise you'll get an update on inheritance drama.
Have seen lots of patients including my grandad with end stage copd survive many years.
In all honesty, you should feel grateful if there is "inheritance drama". Inheritance may as well be strange customs of an alien culture as far as the vast majority of people are concerned. My grandparents just died and they had retired to a trailer in Florida and then moved in with my aunt when they got too old and frail to take care of themselves anymore. No money to dish out. My family has ten children that were raised on one government employee income. I'm going to get jack squat when my father dies. If you have "inheritance drama", you are living the good life. Be thankful for it.
In all honesty, you should feel grateful if there is "inheritance drama". Inheritance may as well be strange customs of an alien culture as far as the vast majority of people are concerned. My grandparents just died and they had retired to a trailer in Florida and then moved in with my aunt when they got too old and frail to take care of themselves anymore. No money to dish out. My family has ten children that were raised on one government employee income. I'm going to get jack squat when my father dies. If you have "inheritance drama", you are living the good life. Be thankful for it.
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?
In all honesty, you should feel grateful if there is "inheritance drama". Inheritance may as well be strange customs of an alien culture as far as the vast majority of people are concerned. My grandparents just died and they had retired to a trailer in Florida and then moved in with my aunt when they got too old and frail to take care of themselves anymore. No money to dish out. My family has ten children that were raised on one government employee income. I'm going to get jack squat when my father dies. If you have "inheritance drama", you are living the good life. Be thankful for it.
When my dad died, he left everything to the 7 kids. It wasn't much (I got about $10k). His will stated that everything be sold and divided up. But honestly, he didn't have anything worth selling (he gave me his copy of Walden years before, to give you an idea).Seriously - the lowest drama method is to give it away before you die. Want a family heirloom to go to someone special? Hand it to them while you can still remember who they are.
I can see myself someday -- as I approach my personal expiration date -- gifting cash/stocks to my heirs which won't exceed the maximum exclusion amount ($14,000 in 2015). Even prior to that date -- for my nieces and nephews -- I'm considering offering them an IRA match to encourage them to save.
We're fortunate in that we have had no drama in my immediate family. My brother and I will be our parents' executors and the other siblings are fine with that. I even tried to get my father to exclude me from the inheritance (since I don't need the money), but he refused, thinking it would be unseemly.
I suppose being financially independent helps to insulate you from the inheritance drama. After lurking on this thread for the past few months, I realize how blessed our family has been to avoid the bad karma of fighting over an inheritance.
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?
In the middle of a situation filled with abuse, social workers, lawyers, and a dickbag of an uncle, I though that the thoughtfulness of how she split up material belongings showed a lot of grace.
In the middle of a situation filled with abuse, social workers, lawyers, and a dickbag of an uncle, I though that the thoughtfulness of how she split up material belongings showed a lot of grace.
I find the phrase "dickbag of an uncle" strangely hilarious, but I am sorry you have one...an uncle who is a dickbag, I mean.
The estates where there's little to fight over seem to have the most vicious fighting in my estimation.
The estates where there's little to fight over seem to have the most vicious fighting in my estimation.
Reminds me of a joke I once heard.
Q: Why are academic politics so heated?
A: Because the stakes are so low.
Sidetrack, but here's another one MgoSam -
Q: Why do grandparents and grandchildren get along so well?
A: They have a common enemy.
In the middle of a situation filled with abuse, social workers, lawyers, and a dickbag of an uncle, I though that the thoughtfulness of how she split up material belongings showed a lot of grace.
I find the phrase "dickbag of an uncle" strangely hilarious, but I am sorry you have one...an uncle who is a dickbag, I mean.
Sometimes standard insults are just not sufficient. ;)
Ah well, the grandpa's estate closure is going along on the death of his 2nd wife.
My two shitty uncles continued their shitty trend of calling (someone) and wanting to know "when do I get my money??" (I'm guessing the boys' trust was quite large, over half a million). These guys are in their 70s, WTF?
My sister has not figured out what happened to $60k of the missing trust for the girls. She suspects the boys raided it.
Based on a letter she sent to the trust people, they amended their letter and the amounts that each beneficiary gets - and it's now correct. So, I told my sister she should get a cut of it since she did their job for them! Sheesh.
In any event, I was visiting and she is so frustrated with how horrible our uncles are, how there is money missing, and how upset my mother would be if she were alive. I told her to let it go. We aren't talking a lot of money here. Mom is dead, so she doesn't know any better. Don't worry about things you cannot control. So the uncles' wives get the money and blow it all - great! it goes into the economy. You can't change it. They are old and miserable and will continue to be so. Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
Right? My parents died when I was 37 (dad) and 41 (mom), and neither of them lived to see the birth of my second child.Ah well, the grandpa's estate closure is going along on the death of his 2nd wife.
My two shitty uncles continued their shitty trend of calling (someone) and wanting to know "when do I get my money??" (I'm guessing the boys' trust was quite large, over half a million). These guys are in their 70s, WTF?
My sister has not figured out what happened to $60k of the missing trust for the girls. She suspects the boys raided it.
Based on a letter she sent to the trust people, they amended their letter and the amounts that each beneficiary gets - and it's now correct. So, I told my sister she should get a cut of it since she did their job for them! Sheesh.
In any event, I was visiting and she is so frustrated with how horrible our uncles are, how there is money missing, and how upset my mother would be if she were alive. I told her to let it go. We aren't talking a lot of money here. Mom is dead, so she doesn't know any better. Don't worry about things you cannot control. So the uncles' wives get the money and blow it all - great! it goes into the economy. You can't change it. They are old and miserable and will continue to be so. Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
I hope my parents live to see me in my 70's.
Ah well, the grandpa's estate closure is going along on the death of his 2nd wife.
My two shitty uncles continued their shitty trend of calling (someone) and wanting to know "when do I get my money??" (I'm guessing the boys' trust was quite large, over half a million). These guys are in their 70s, WTF?
My sister has not figured out what happened to $60k of the missing trust for the girls. She suspects the boys raided it.
Based on a letter she sent to the trust people, they amended their letter and the amounts that each beneficiary gets - and it's now correct. So, I told my sister she should get a cut of it since she did their job for them! Sheesh.
In any event, I was visiting and she is so frustrated with how horrible our uncles are, how there is money missing, and how upset my mother would be if she were alive. I told her to let it go. We aren't talking a lot of money here. Mom is dead, so she doesn't know any better. Don't worry about things you cannot control. So the uncles' wives get the money and blow it all - great! it goes into the economy. You can't change it. They are old and miserable and will continue to be so. Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
My sister has asked for annual statements going back to the year that it had more money in it. She hasn't gotten them yet. If the boys raided it, it would totally suck, and there is virtually no chance of getting the money back now. You can't hold up the big trust to sort it out, anyway. Not legally. We both, of course, hope that step-grandma needed it and used it.Ah well, the grandpa's estate closure is going along on the death of his 2nd wife.
My two shitty uncles continued their shitty trend of calling (someone) and wanting to know "when do I get my money??" (I'm guessing the boys' trust was quite large, over half a million). These guys are in their 70s, WTF?
My sister has not figured out what happened to $60k of the missing trust for the girls. She suspects the boys raided it.
Based on a letter she sent to the trust people, they amended their letter and the amounts that each beneficiary gets - and it's now correct. So, I told my sister she should get a cut of it since she did their job for them! Sheesh.
In any event, I was visiting and she is so frustrated with how horrible our uncles are, how there is money missing, and how upset my mother would be if she were alive. I told her to let it go. We aren't talking a lot of money here. Mom is dead, so she doesn't know any better. Don't worry about things you cannot control. So the uncles' wives get the money and blow it all - great! it goes into the economy. You can't change it. They are old and miserable and will continue to be so. Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
If the girl's trust is smaller (and there are more recipients?), $60k missing may not be so insignificant for everyone receiving under it. Doesn't the trustee have records of any disbursements? (Wouldn't the trustee also be on the hook for an improper disbursement?) Or is it possible that step-grandma spent it and it's not missing after all?
My sister has asked for annual statements going back to the year that it had more money in it. She hasn't gotten them yet. If the boys raided it, it would totally suck, and there is virtually no chance of getting the money back now. You can't hold up the big trust to sort it out, anyway. Not legally. We both, of course, hope that step-grandma needed it and used it.Ah well, the grandpa's estate closure is going along on the death of his 2nd wife.
My two shitty uncles continued their shitty trend of calling (someone) and wanting to know "when do I get my money??" (I'm guessing the boys' trust was quite large, over half a million). These guys are in their 70s, WTF?
My sister has not figured out what happened to $60k of the missing trust for the girls. She suspects the boys raided it.
Based on a letter she sent to the trust people, they amended their letter and the amounts that each beneficiary gets - and it's now correct. So, I told my sister she should get a cut of it since she did their job for them! Sheesh.
In any event, I was visiting and she is so frustrated with how horrible our uncles are, how there is money missing, and how upset my mother would be if she were alive. I told her to let it go. We aren't talking a lot of money here. Mom is dead, so she doesn't know any better. Don't worry about things you cannot control. So the uncles' wives get the money and blow it all - great! it goes into the economy. You can't change it. They are old and miserable and will continue to be so. Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
If the girl's trust is smaller (and there are more recipients?), $60k missing may not be so insignificant for everyone receiving under it. Doesn't the trustee have records of any disbursements? (Wouldn't the trustee also be on the hook for an improper disbursement?) Or is it possible that step-grandma spent it and it's not missing after all?
You are right that it's not insignificant. $60k equates 1/4 of the total.
This one is less drama and more anti-mustachian.
My dad, who is actually a very wise fellow, but HORRIBLE with money, took his share of his parents estate early, about 12 years ago, the other siblings permitted him to do so, so he got a cheque. And no, he did not invest it wisely, or pay off debt, it was just burned.
Fast forward to when my grandfatherr (his father) dies last year. After the estate is all settled, he tells me that his brothers and sisters are getting a nice big cheque for about $30,000 each from the estate. So I ask, "And you got one too?" "No" he says "I took my share on it about 12 years ago, I was about $8,000."
Ouch.
This one is less drama and more anti-mustachian.
My dad, who is actually a very wise fellow, but HORRIBLE with money, took his share of his parents estate early, about 12 years ago, the other siblings permitted him to do so, so he got a cheque. And no, he did not invest it wisely, or pay off debt, it was just burned.
Fast forward to when my grandfatherr (his father) dies last year. After the estate is all settled, he tells me that his brothers and sisters are getting a nice big cheque for about $30,000 each from the estate. So I ask, "And you got one too?" "No" he says "I took my share on it about 12 years ago, I was about $8,000."
Ouch.
Parents still sometimes give children a share of the estate early? I thought that only happened in the biblical story of the Prodigal Son. I can't picture anyone even wanting to ask their parents for early death-money.
A few posts up we have grumpy 70-year old uncles waiting for their inheritance. Giving them a dozen thousand four decades ago would have stopped all that grief. A person is entitled to their share of the estate....sometimes it is easier just to give them it.Um, No? Getting a pile of money will not teach them how to be better with it, they'll just burn through it and want more. In my family, it would be sister, not uncle. Different gender, same bad behavior.
A few posts up we have grumpy 70-year old uncles waiting for their inheritance. Giving them a dozen thousand four decades ago would have stopped all that grief. A person is entitled to their share of the estate....sometimes it is easier just to give them it.Um, No? Getting a pile of money will not teach them how to be better with it, they'll just burn through it and want more. In my family, it would be sister, not uncle. Different gender, same bad behavior.
This one is less drama and more anti-mustachian.
My dad, who is actually a very wise fellow, but HORRIBLE with money, took his share of his parents estate early, about 12 years ago, the other siblings permitted him to do so, so he got a cheque. And no, he did not invest it wisely, or pay off debt, it was just burned.
Fast forward to when my grandfatherr (his father) dies last year. After the estate is all settled, he tells me that his brothers and sisters are getting a nice big cheque for about $30,000 each from the estate. So I ask, "And you got one too?" "No" he says "I took my share on it about 12 years ago, I was about $8,000."
Ouch.
Parents still sometimes give children a share of the estate early? I thought that only happened in the biblical story of the Prodigal Son. I can't picture anyone even wanting to ask their parents for early death-money.
If there's someone out there who will ask for it, there is someone out there who will give it. My older brother had the nerve to ask Mom and Daddy for his inheritance early. He wanted to buy tenant housing in NYC and be a slumlord.BWAHAHAHAHA! My parents have said the same thing on many occasions! :D
Mom told him she wasn't done spending his inheritance.
If there's someone out there who will ask for it, there is someone out there who will give it. My older brother had the nerve to ask Mom and Daddy for his inheritance early. He wanted to buy tenant housing in NYC and be a slumlord.BWAHAHAHAHA! My parents have said the same thing on many occasions! :D
Mom told him she wasn't done spending his inheritance.
I assure you, it never avoids strife. Real life other branch of the family example: four cousins inherit a property that their father owned as a rental. One son lives in it (stipulated in the will). He has been allotted a very generous amount of time to fix it up in his spare time. It really needs it and he has the skillz. One sibling had a medical issue and needed money. He bought out her share and everyone was happy for a while. Now this house has skyrocketed in value, sister's husband just died and sis has nothing to live on. Can you see where this is going? And this is not the sister referenced earlier. I don't have the stomach to write about that drama fest yet.A few posts up we have grumpy 70-year old uncles waiting for their inheritance. Giving them a dozen thousand four decades ago would have stopped all that grief. A person is entitled to their share of the estate....sometimes it is easier just to give them it.Um, No? Getting a pile of money will not teach them how to be better with it, they'll just burn through it and want more. In my family, it would be sister, not uncle. Different gender, same bad behavior.
My apologies for the misunderstanding. I meant to say that it is a technique to avoid strife caused by the inheritor while they wait. Not that the inheritor will use it properly.
You would think. But there was a clause in there about "severe financial need". The problem is, when the bank handling the trust first sent out the recent letters, they mentioned that a small portion of the "girl's" trust was going to go to the boys. My sister is the one that got them to review that (my sister has a copy of all the documents, my mother having been in banking). When they re-read it, they corrected it.My sister has asked for annual statements going back to the year that it had more money in it. She hasn't gotten them yet. If the boys raided it, it would totally suck, and there is virtually no chance of getting the money back now. You can't hold up the big trust to sort it out, anyway. Not legally. We both, of course, hope that step-grandma needed it and used it.Ah well, the grandpa's estate closure is going along on the death of his 2nd wife.
My two shitty uncles continued their shitty trend of calling (someone) and wanting to know "when do I get my money??" (I'm guessing the boys' trust was quite large, over half a million). These guys are in their 70s, WTF?
My sister has not figured out what happened to $60k of the missing trust for the girls. She suspects the boys raided it.
Based on a letter she sent to the trust people, they amended their letter and the amounts that each beneficiary gets - and it's now correct. So, I told my sister she should get a cut of it since she did their job for them! Sheesh.
In any event, I was visiting and she is so frustrated with how horrible our uncles are, how there is money missing, and how upset my mother would be if she were alive. I told her to let it go. We aren't talking a lot of money here. Mom is dead, so she doesn't know any better. Don't worry about things you cannot control. So the uncles' wives get the money and blow it all - great! it goes into the economy. You can't change it. They are old and miserable and will continue to be so. Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
If the girl's trust is smaller (and there are more recipients?), $60k missing may not be so insignificant for everyone receiving under it. Doesn't the trustee have records of any disbursements? (Wouldn't the trustee also be on the hook for an improper disbursement?) Or is it possible that step-grandma spent it and it's not missing after all?
You are right that it's not insignificant. $60k equates 1/4 of the total.
Interesting, I would have assumed the trustee would have a fiduciary duty to only make proper disbursements, and thus you'd have legal recourse against them if they breached that duty by permitting someone who was not authorized to take money. It's not any different if they gave me the money or an unpermitted family member. And of course, you could go after the uncles (if you wished to accept with the associated fallout from it) because it's considering stealing to take money that they have no right to. Anyways, hopefully it was step-grandma!
The one *good* uncle I had worked very hard with my grandpa in the family business. He got *his* inheritance in the form of part of the business when he was in his 30's or 40's (grandpa still alive), and of course, did very well with it. That's why even though there are 3 boys, only 2 are part of the trust.This one is less drama and more anti-mustachian.
My dad, who is actually a very wise fellow, but HORRIBLE with money, took his share of his parents estate early, about 12 years ago, the other siblings permitted him to do so, so he got a cheque. And no, he did not invest it wisely, or pay off debt, it was just burned.
Fast forward to when my grandfatherr (his father) dies last year. After the estate is all settled, he tells me that his brothers and sisters are getting a nice big cheque for about $30,000 each from the estate. So I ask, "And you got one too?" "No" he says "I took my share on it about 12 years ago, I was about $8,000."
Ouch.
Parents still sometimes give children a share of the estate early? I thought that only happened in the biblical story of the Prodigal Son. I can't picture anyone even wanting to ask their parents for early death-money.
If Jonny wants to get his share early and be written out of the will I don't see an issue with that....
A few posts up we have grumpy 70-year old uncles waiting for their inheritance. Giving them a dozen thousand four decades ago would have stopped all that grief. A person is entitled to their share of the estate....sometimes it is easier just to give them it.
You would think. But there was a clause in there about "severe financial need". The problem is, when the bank handling the trust first sent out the recent letters, they mentioned that a small portion of the "girl's" trust was going to go to the boys. My sister is the one that got them to review that (my sister has a copy of all the documents, my mother having been in banking). When they re-read it, they corrected it.
Which leads me to believe that it's entirely possible that they let the boys raid the girls' trust, if they didn't even read the damn trust documents until last month.
My FIL used to say "my kids are my retirement plan". And then he cheated on his wife (MIL) and they divorced. Good luck with that buddy.If there's someone out there who will ask for it, there is someone out there who will give it. My older brother had the nerve to ask Mom and Daddy for his inheritance early. He wanted to buy tenant housing in NYC and be a slumlord.BWAHAHAHAHA! My parents have said the same thing on many occasions! :D
Mom told him she wasn't done spending his inheritance.
What do you do when relatives don't even have the courtesy to tell the only other direct descendant that the patriarch was moved to a care home and then that he died a year later? Especially if there is hints that this was done to mask plundering of any remaining accounts (using power of attorney / joint banking, etc)?
Odd inheritance story, and I don't know how it will end. Friend's ex listed her as a beneficiary on an annuity dating back to their separation over 10 years ago. Friend's ex remarried, adopted a child, and recently died unexpectedly.
The annuity company asked friend for separation papers and divorce decree, which she sent on, but their request for a certified death certificate from her seemed absurd (and how would she get it anyway?)
Change your beneficiaries, y'all!
This one is less drama and more anti-mustachian.
My dad, who is actually a very wise fellow, but HORRIBLE with money, took his share of his parents estate early, about 12 years ago, the other siblings permitted him to do so, so he got a cheque. And no, he did not invest it wisely, or pay off debt, it was just burned.
Fast forward to when my grandfatherr (his father) dies last year. After the estate is all settled, he tells me that his brothers and sisters are getting a nice big cheque for about $30,000 each from the estate. So I ask, "And you got one too?" "No" he says "I took my share on it about 12 years ago, I was about $8,000."
Ouch.
Parents still sometimes give children a share of the estate early? I thought that only happened in the biblical story of the Prodigal Son. I can't picture anyone even wanting to ask their parents for early death-money.
Re Geekette's question: a death certificate is a public record. For a few dollars your friend can get it from the state that issued the death certificate. Just tell her to Google it.
Check those trust documents!My grandfather's bank changed the manager of the trust (or whatever it's called...not enough coffee) from his family lawyer to themselves, just by sneaking a paper into a big pile that he was signing. Yeah, my mom and other family members were PISSED - they didn't find THAT out until grandpa died and the lawyer contacted them ... and they said "nope, he signed a paper right here!"
A year ago my mother decided to change the trustee on her trust. The trust (and my deceased father's trust) had been drafted by a prominent, and expensive, law firm, and amended by the firm over the years. My mother had recently heard an elder law attorney speak at her church group and wanted to go there, so we did. In preparation for going, I read the trust documents. There were inconsistencies in amendments: a key one being that my daughter (the only grandchild) was written into the trust 15 years ago, but when other changes were made later, the law firm copied the beneficiaries from an early version, omitting my daughter. Because my father had died, the trust could not be changed, leaving my sister and me as the sole beneficiaries upon my mother's death. My mother said the intent had been for my daughter to get 1/5 and my sister and I to each get 2/5 of my parents' estate, which had been the family lore, so she added my daughter as a beneficiary to her trust, essentially achieving the desired result. (Btw, the elder law firm was fabulous at explaining all this to my mother and walking her through it all, and they charged only $250 for the entire process, including three meetings. How do they make money?). I'm so glad that we did not discover the error after my mom's death. I confess I omitted the drama part relating to the changing of the trustee....no need for another "families behaving badly" vignette!
I don't know, I can see some circumstances in which a child might ask for some inheritance money early. For example, if I wanted to start a business and needed £50,000 and didn't want to take out a loan if possible and only had £25,000 saved up, I might ask my parents if they would be willing to give me the other half against any money I might inherit when they die.
I have a story to share... Well, it is DH's story. You see, his dad died when he was young, leaving a sister parents, him, and a widow.
Grandparents were always in DH's life, from babysitting while mom worked, to fishing, etc... So after we were married, we made a point to travel to see them about once a year, sometimes 2x per year. We were 22-30 at this time, so using up a week of vacation to go drive to visit elderly grand parent -in-laws was not really that exciting, but we were glad to see them.
Well, life got pretty busy for us with small children, a move to California (now to far to travel to see them), and then DH was sick with mono for a year... Meanwhile, we could never get through on Grandpa's phone, so no contact with him for 2 years, and never followed up that diligently either...
So when grandpa passed away a couple of years ago, we had a bit of shock to learn that DH's Aunt had previously moved him to a care facility nearer to her (great!) but never called us so we could have a chance to see him --as the new city was one we did go to sometimes--, and worst of all, upon death decided to hold no funeral (Grandpa was depressed in the last years, and we knew this was likely his wish), but did not even call DH to say that grandpa had passed away. We found out because another elderly relative (other side of family) reads the obits put out by funeral homes -- read that it stated "no funeral", and had posted a few details about his life / family and recognized him and let us know.
As DH had been adopted by another man some 15 years before, (mom remarried) the sole inheritor by intestate rules would have been DH's aunt.. but man, it is so odd because Grandpa used to talk about his will sometimes to us (but not about money in it), and it seems so strange that DH and his great grandkids would have been deliberately cut out. We are surmising in the best possible way that there was no money left, even after grandpa's home was sold....(the care facility would have cost close to the government monthly stipend, so not drawn from his personal monies, except for the transfer and for clothing). At the end of it all, all DH only really wanted a small decorative wooden tray his dad had made before he died... that grandpa had treasured more than anything else, and kept with him. Ugh. Probably put into the trash.
What do you do when relatives don't even have the courtesy to tell the only other direct descendant that the patriarch was moved to a care home and then that he died a year later? Especially if there is hints that this was done to mask plundering of any remaining accounts (using power of attorney / joint banking, etc)?
This thread is ADDICTIVE.
So many awful stories about split shares of real estate. My Dad remarried a nice lady a few years after my Mom died. He told me he was changing his will to leave his house 1/3 to me and 2/3 to her. I began imagining sharing the house with her kids after she died and visions of real estate nightmares danced in my head. "Oh hell no, Dad," I told him, "Leave her the whole house. And may you die with a smile on your face and a dollar left in your pocket."
I'm his executor and I know where the will is, but I don't even care what's in it. He has me joint on a small bank account, which will cover the funeral and a send off with plenty of booze at the local fire hall. That's good enough for me.
Just changed my will -- I bought a modest rental house and my tenant is daughter #2, in the city where she graduated and is pursuing her professional career. Daughter #1 is in NYC and told her, "Sweetie, I can't afford to buy a parking space to rent to you." The house is willed to daughter #2, and I rebalanced my life insurance so Daughter #1 gets additional insurance proceeds equivalent to the value of the house. I'll revisit the amount annually based on housing market appreciation (the area is gentrifying so the expected trend is upward). I would never want to leave my daughters a legacy of dispute and estrangement due to shared real estate.
My in-laws just told me and my husband that they want my husband to be both the will executor and trustee. They want to work it so their assets will be placed in a trust to avoid probate. He accepted this job and the details are still being worked. The only thing we worry about is my husband and his sister didn't get along at all in childhood and haven't spoken in years. I have not even met her as a result of this despite having been dating + married to him for so many years. The sister is being given 1 important role, medical power of attorney, because she lives only a few minutes' drive away from his parents and could act faster if needed. This makes sense. We currently live several hours away. Being ER, we could easily stay in his parents' town if something happens, but that would require a day or two to act, so we couldn't help with medical things as much. But the sister isn't very reliable for many reasons and thus why this was the only responsibility she was given. His parents will probably be around for another 10-15 years or so, but whenever they do both die - hopefully the sister doesn't try to cause any drama. We have the time to take care of his parents' estate however is needed, but I don't like family drama in general. :/Redbird, this gave me chills to read, especially the bolded parts. My brain is screaming Nooooooooooooo! Your in-laws are thinking "acute medical emergency, where time is of the essence", which is actually a less common scenario than "gradual age-related decline". In this day of efficient communication, proximity does not trump reliability. For context, both of my parents have passed away in the last two years. I have alluded to this situation upthread. I don't want to discuss it at great length, but for your sake, I will share what, I assure you, is only the tip of the Titanic-sized iceberg..
My in-laws just told me and my husband that they want my husband to be both the will executor and trustee. They want to work it so their assets will be placed in a trust to avoid probate. He accepted this job and the details are still being worked. The only thing we worry about is my husband and his sister didn't get along at all in childhood and haven't spoken in years. I have not even met her as a result of this despite having been dating + married to him for so many years. The sister is being given 1 important role, medical power of attorney, because she lives only a few minutes' drive away from his parents and could act faster if needed. This makes sense. We currently live several hours away. Being ER, we could easily stay in his parents' town if something happens, but that would require a day or two to act, so we couldn't help with medical things as much. But the sister isn't very reliable for many reasons and thus why this was the only responsibility she was given. His parents will probably be around for another 10-15 years or so, but whenever they do both die - hopefully the sister doesn't try to cause any drama. We have the time to take care of his parents' estate however is needed, but I don't like family drama in general. :/Redbird, this gave me chills to read, especially the bolded parts. My brain is screaming Nooooooooooooo! Your in-laws are thinking "acute medical emergency, where time is of the essence", which is actually a less common scenario than "gradual age-related decline". In this day of efficient communication, proximity does not trump reliability. . . .
I could sadly go on, but this drama is still unfolding and I haven't the stomach to write more about it yet. Just know that dividing these duties may backfire in ways none of you can imagine. For everyone's sake, have a heart-to-heart with all parties and encourage them to consider this decision more carefully.
I don't know, I can see some circumstances in which a child might ask for some inheritance money early. For example, if I wanted to start a business and needed £50,000 and didn't want to take out a loan if possible and only had £25,000 saved up, I might ask my parents if they would be willing to give me the other half against any money I might inherit when they die.
Oh, hell no.
I would ask to borrow some money from my parents and pay it back. I simply cannot imagine asking my parents for "my" share of their estate.
I don't know, I can see some circumstances in which a child might ask for some inheritance money early. For example, if I wanted to start a business and needed £50,000 and didn't want to take out a loan if possible and only had £25,000 saved up, I might ask my parents if they would be willing to give me the other half against any money I might inherit when they die.
Oh, hell no.
I would ask to borrow some money from my parents and pay it back. I simply cannot imagine asking my parents for "my" share of their estate.
Ummm, people get (part of) their inheritance early really frequently in my family. I never thought of it as weird before reading this thread. Is it the ASKING for the inheritance that you find inappropriate or the giving pre-death?
I've been offered a pre-inheritance a couple of times from various relatives (when I was either considering buying a house or (pre-mmm) sorting out my financial shit). I don't know the details of it but I know that my siblings have been given pre-inheritances at expensive stages of their lives (house buying, fertility treatment, illness, relationship break-up). I also don't know the asking/offering dynamic with the siblings' share, but there was no demanding and everyone gets on well. I know that one of my great-aunts gave aunts/uncles pre-inheritances when they asked - her will just reflected the amounts given when she died.
Before reading this thread, if I was in the example Shelivesthedream gave, I would have totally asked (not demanded) if they would consider a pre-inheritance. Is this an Atlantic divide thing, or a family dynamic thing?
[If people think I am a terrible person for thinking this, please keep your comments to academic study of why/how/what rather than name calling. ]
I don't know, I can see some circumstances in which a child might ask for some inheritance money early. For example, if I wanted to start a business and needed £50,000 and didn't want to take out a loan if possible and only had £25,000 saved up, I might ask my parents if they would be willing to give me the other half against any money I might inherit when they die.
Oh, hell no.
I would ask to borrow some money from my parents and pay it back. I simply cannot imagine asking my parents for "my" share of their estate.
Ummm, people get (part of) their inheritance early really frequently in my family. I never thought of it as weird before reading this thread. Is it the ASKING for the inheritance that you find inappropriate or the giving pre-death?
I've been offered a pre-inheritance a couple of times from various relatives (when I was either considering buying a house or (pre-mmm) sorting out my financial shit). I don't know the details of it but I know that my siblings have been given pre-inheritances at expensive stages of their lives (house buying, fertility treatment, illness, relationship break-up). I also don't know the asking/offering dynamic with the siblings' share, but there was no demanding and everyone gets on well. I know that one of my great-aunts gave aunts/uncles pre-inheritances when they asked - her will just reflected the amounts given when she died.
Before reading this thread, if I was in the example Shelivesthedream gave, I would have totally asked (not demanded) if they would consider a pre-inheritance. Is this an Atlantic divide thing, or a family dynamic thing?
[If people think I am a terrible person for thinking this, please keep your comments to academic study of why/how/what rather than name calling. ]
It's the asking. Totally the asking.
If my parents want to say "hey, we've earmarked this money for you, you can either get it now when we think you need it or after we die, your choice", they've chosen what to do with their money, and I'd take it if I needed it and be appreciative.
That's different from saying "I've decided that this part of your money is my money and can I have it now."
Frankly, in my family, if I went to my parents and said "hey, could I borrow X amount and we could discuss a payment plan", it'd likely be offered up as a pre-inheritance... but I wouldn't assume that that money is earmarked as mine unless it was explicitly stated.
I don't know, I can see some circumstances in which a child might ask for some inheritance money early. For example, if I wanted to start a business and needed £50,000 and didn't want to take out a loan if possible and only had £25,000 saved up, I might ask my parents if they would be willing to give me the other half against any money I might inherit when they die.
Oh, hell no.
I would ask to borrow some money from my parents and pay it back. I simply cannot imagine asking my parents for "my" share of their estate.
Ummm, people get (part of) their inheritance early really frequently in my family. I never thought of it as weird before reading this thread. Is it the ASKING for the inheritance that you find inappropriate or the giving pre-death?
I've been offered a pre-inheritance a couple of times from various relatives (when I was either considering buying a house or (pre-mmm) sorting out my financial shit). I don't know the details of it but I know that my siblings have been given pre-inheritances at expensive stages of their lives (house buying, fertility treatment, illness, relationship break-up). I also don't know the asking/offering dynamic with the siblings' share, but there was no demanding and everyone gets on well. I know that one of my great-aunts gave aunts/uncles pre-inheritances when they asked - her will just reflected the amounts given when she died.
Before reading this thread, if I was in the example Shelivesthedream gave, I would have totally asked (not demanded) if they would consider a pre-inheritance. Is this an Atlantic divide thing, or a family dynamic thing?
[If people think I am a terrible person for thinking this, please keep your comments to academic study of why/how/what rather than name calling. ]
It's the asking. Totally the asking.
If my parents want to say "hey, we've earmarked this money for you, you can either get it now when we think you need it or after we die, your choice", they've chosen what to do with their money, and I'd take it if I needed it and be appreciative.
That's different from saying "I've decided that this part of your money is my money and can I have it now."
Frankly, in my family, if I went to my parents and said "hey, could I borrow X amount and we could discuss a payment plan", it'd likely be offered up as a pre-inheritance... but I wouldn't assume that that money is earmarked as mine unless it was explicitly stated.
It is the asking... but it's more than that, too.
Let's say I have $1M in the bank, 2 children and I live entirely off the investment income of $1M.
Child 1 demands their half. I give them $500k. Now I am living off of the investment income of $500k. My lifestyle is such that it's okay, but I am starting to draw down the $500k. When I die, the remaining child gets their inheritance and it's only $250k.
But it is the asking. It's presumptuous. "Oh, I see you have lots of money. It's mine, right?"
The life insurance mention reminded me of my decision a few years ago to include my SO in my estate plan. We were quite serious, but not married, so I made him a beneficiary on part of my (work provided) life insurance. I could go online and and change that at any time in 60 seconds (which I did a few years later). No need to write a codicil to the will. (Of course, one could just as easily change beneficiaries to IRA accounts.)
Earlier in the thread I related the house that mom left sis and I.
She's lived in it rent free for about 4 years now. She's make little money
couldn't buy it or pay me rent if she had such an inclination.
But after reading some of the the other posts, I have a question.
I'd like get my name off the title for liability reasons, but I'm thinking
I'd like the house to go to me or my kids when she dies.
Is this reasonable to setup, I think I could push this without a
great problem because after few more years I will have forgiven as
many dollars as much as her value in the house.
We both still expect another 20 to 25 years of life.
No, I don't want to force a sale, sis has nothing and has lived in
a van, and would probably end up there again. I just think someone
on my side deserves something from the inheritance even if it's 25
years later!
Earlier in the thread I related the house that mom left sis and I.
She's lived in it rent free for about 4 years now. She's make little money
couldn't buy it or pay me rent if she had such an inclination.
But after reading some of the the other posts, I have a question.
I'd like get my name off the title for liability reasons, but I'm thinking
I'd like the house to go to me or my kids when she dies.
Is this reasonable to setup, I think I could push this without a
great problem because after few more years I will have forgiven as
many dollars as much as her value in the house.
We both still expect another 20 to 25 years of life.
No, I don't want to force a sale, sis has nothing and has lived in
a van, and would probably end up there again. I just think someone
on my side deserves something from the inheritance even if it's 25
years later!
Not a lawyer, but I thought that having your name on the title meant that you owned it (or part of it). Sounds like you might need an actual lawyer.
I have a story to share... Well, it is DH's story. You see, his dad died when he was young, leaving a sister parents, him, and a widow.
Grandparents were always in DH's life, from babysitting while mom worked, to fishing, etc... So after we were married, we made a point to travel to see them about once a year, sometimes 2x per year. We were 22-30 at this time, so using up a week of vacation to go drive to visit elderly grand parent -in-laws was not really that exciting, but we were glad to see them.
Well, life got pretty busy for us with small children, a move to California (now to far to travel to see them), and then DH was sick with mono for a year... Meanwhile, we could never get through on Grandpa's phone, so no contact with him for 2 years, and never followed up that diligently either...
So when grandpa passed away a couple of years ago, we had a bit of shock to learn that DH's Aunt had previously moved him to a care facility nearer to her (great!) but never called us so we could have a chance to see him --as the new city was one we did go to sometimes--, and worst of all, upon death decided to hold no funeral (Grandpa was depressed in the last years, and we knew this was likely his wish), but did not even call DH to say that grandpa had passed away. We found out because another elderly relative (other side of family) reads the obits put out by funeral homes -- read that it stated "no funeral", and had posted a few details about his life / family and recognized him and let us know.
As DH had been adopted by another man some 15 years before, (mom remarried) the sole inheritor by intestate rules would have been DH's aunt.. but man, it is so odd because Grandpa used to talk about his will sometimes to us (but not about money in it), and it seems so strange that DH and his great grandkids would have been deliberately cut out. We are surmising in the best possible way that there was no money left, even after grandpa's home was sold....(the care facility would have cost close to the government monthly stipend, so not drawn from his personal monies, except for the transfer and for clothing). At the end of it all, all DH only really wanted a small decorative wooden tray his dad had made before he died... that grandpa had treasured more than anything else, and kept with him. Ugh. Probably put into the trash.
What do you do when relatives don't even have the courtesy to tell the only other direct descendant that the patriarch was moved to a care home and then that he died a year later? Especially if there is hints that this was done to mask plundering of any remaining accounts (using power of attorney / joint banking, etc)?
By your own words, you say your husband got too busy and made no effort to stay in basic contact with his grandfather and after trying by phone and having it be disconnected (?) you didn't try other attempts (mail? other relatives? go visit?). You moved away, ceased all contact and apparently did not even write letters or send cards, because if you did, likely someone would have written you back to let you know where he ended up.
Looking at if from the other side:
Grandfather was probably sad and hurt but realized that was your husband's decision to cut him out of his life for some reason, and moved on and stopped thinking about him. His daughter who was there and likely a much closer relationship, took care of him and had to step in and deal with his taxes and bills and other day to day as he aged and became more feeble, and she would have needed the power of attorney and to be on a joint account to make things easy for her to take care of the things as needed (this is not in any way suspicious unless she has a history of being dishonest or evil - it is VERY common). Who is doing all this "hinting" that grandfather's accounts were being plundered? You haven't been in contact with that side of the family in years, right?
The daughter did inform everyone the best she could by placing a public obituary - that's what those things are for. I think it is very unrealistic to have expected her to put her own grief and dealing with the mess of closing an estate aside to try to track down and personally contact an estranged relative (your husband) who had moved out of the area and had lost contact with his grandfather for YEARS, and likely she herself had no contact info for, especially right after her own father's death.
So it's a little sad, but what one should expect if you let the relationship die away and make no effort at all.
Earlier in the thread I related the house that mom left sis and I.
She's lived in it rent free for about 4 years now. She's make little money
couldn't buy it or pay me rent if she had such an inclination.
But after reading some of the the other posts, I have a question.
I'd like get my name off the title for liability reasons, but I'm thinking
I'd like the house to go to me or my kids when she dies.
Is this reasonable to setup, I think I could push this without a
great problem because after few more years I will have forgiven as
many dollars as much as her value in the house.
We both still expect another 20 to 25 years of life.
No, I don't want to force a sale, sis has nothing and has lived in
a van, and would probably end up there again. I just think someone
on my side deserves something from the inheritance even if it's 25
years later!
Not a lawyer, but I thought that having your name on the title meant that you owned it (or part of it). Sounds like you might need an actual lawyer.
Just relying on her to give you her share in a will is risky because she could always change it. You need a lawyer to set it up so she has a life interest in the house, but you retain remainder rights to it after her death. Also consider how taxes and insurance will be paid if she's low income.
We weren't too shocked by the outcome,given our communication lapse, but saddened that Auntie who did have DH's number and DH's parent's number (but we did not have hers) never thought to call at all.
We weren't too shocked by the outcome,given our communication lapse, but saddened that Auntie who did have DH's number and DH's parent's number (but we did not have hers) never thought to call at all.
My whole life I have been very close with my great-aunt and uncle on my dad's side, I think mostly because my dad's mom died when he was very young and his dad basically abandoned his kids for a new woman, so this great-aunt and uncle were very much like my dad's parents. Anyhow, my dad has controlling tendencies, and one of these is that he always wanted to be the direct point of contact with that whole side of the family. For example, every time I wanted to visit them, like when I came home on college break, I was supposed to ask my dad to call them and check on scheduling. Even though I had their phone numbers and mailed them cards and such, it would have been (unreasonably) offensive to my dad to not go through him for in-person visits.
Anyway, both my great-aunt and uncle got very sick around the same time and were moved into the same facility. We had thought that great-uncle was worse off, and I was having pretty regular calls with them, my cousins (their kids), and my dad. One week I had to go on an extremely demanding business trip and was getting about 1-2 hours of sleep per night to the point that I had a call with my dad on Friday night that I essentially have no recollection of because I was falling over from sleep deprivation and telling him I'd have to talk to him after I got back from my work trip. (Another aspect of his narcissism is demanding phone calls whenever he wants them for however long he wants them so that he can ramble on and on.) So, work trip ends on Sunday, I go back to the office, where it is a week-from-hell, especially with my bully boss, and I'm still working around the clock. Wednesday comes and I get a weird text from my mom to call her ASAP. My two parents were in a hearing for their divorce and it was disclosed to the judge that my dad couldn't be available the next day because he had to go to such-and-such area of the state for a funeral. Mom gets very concerned because she is also very close to great-aunt and uncle, and she looks up online fearing that she may find uncle has passed away. But no, it was great-aunt who passed away that Sunday.
Dad found out the news on Sunday and was supposed to have told me, mom, and my brothers, but out of spite he did not. Spite to my mom due to their divorce (he didn't think she deserved half because he was the higher income earner and he's selfish). As for me, I later got a text from my dad after the funeral that was something like, "Just went to your Aunt Mertle's funeral. She died." I later confronted him about why he didn't tell me about it when he found out so that I could have been there and that I was so hurt he didn't tell me. His answer, which to this day he maintains is justified, is that I did not call him back on Monday after I got home from my work trip, so obviously I did not care enough to know what was going on with him and the family. Of course, the rest of the family was horrified when they found out that dad withheld the info from us. Now we don't care about dad's rule and just always communicate directly.
No inheritance component -- just a family member being a jerk about a loved one's death.
ETA: The part that keeps me gnawing at it, is not about the money, as I think there would be very little... it is the logic -- that we knew that a will existed, and as executrix, she would have needed to attempt to contact all the named beneficiaries...but we were never contacted and the will was never put through probate, so
1) Grandpa and grandma lied to us about a will (discussed before grandma died)
2) Grandpa changed his will (or invalidated it) to exclude his grandson after he started to become senile
3) She hid the fact that a will existed / ignored it out of convenience.
Given the history, I am leaning towards the last one.
A friend once told us "you get to your twenties and realize the whole damn family is crazy..." ;)
The older I get the more I realize well-adjusted and reliable must be pretty rare qualities in people...
I hope life delivers more of what you want from life LeRainDrop. You've certainly been tested enough.
Dad found out the news on Sunday and was supposed to have told me, mom, and my brothers, but out of spite he did not. Spite to my mom due to their divorce (he didn't think she deserved half because he was the higher income earner and he's selfish). As for me, I later got a text from my dad after the funeral that was something like, "Just went to your Aunt Mertle's funeral. She died." I later confronted him about why he didn't tell me about it when he found out so that I could have been there and that I was so hurt he didn't tell me. His answer, which to this day he maintains is justified, is that I did not call him back on Monday after I got home from my work trip, so obviously I did not care enough to know what was going on with him and the family. Of course, the rest of the family was horrified when they found out that dad withheld the info from us. Now we don't care about dad's rule and just always communicate directly.WOW.....I am surprised that anyone even speaks to your dad !
QuoteDad found out the news on Sunday and was supposed to have told me, mom, and my brothers, but out of spite he did not. Spite to my mom due to their divorce (he didn't think she deserved half because he was the higher income earner and he's selfish). As for me, I later got a text from my dad after the funeral that was something like, "Just went to your Aunt Mertle's funeral. She died." I later confronted him about why he didn't tell me about it when he found out so that I could have been there and that I was so hurt he didn't tell me. His answer, which to this day he maintains is justified, is that I did not call him back on Monday after I got home from my work trip, so obviously I did not care enough to know what was going on with him and the family. Of course, the rest of the family was horrified when they found out that dad withheld the info from us. Now we don't care about dad's rule and just always communicate directly.WOW.....I am surprised that anyone even speaks to your dad !
Now, I'm glad to have a relationship with him in which I actually put up and enforce healthy boundaries. That took a good deal of therapy and reading self-help books to finally get to the place where I could do that!Now, there's a legacy Aunt Mertle would be proud of!
We weren't too shocked by the outcome,given our communication lapse, but saddened that Auntie who did have DH's number and DH's parent's number (but we did not have hers) never thought to call at all.
My whole life I have been very close with my great-aunt and uncle on my dad's side, I think mostly because my dad's mom died when he was very young and his dad basically abandoned his kids for a new woman, so this great-aunt and uncle were very much like my dad's parents. Anyhow, my dad has controlling tendencies, and one of these is that he always wanted to be the direct point of contact with that whole side of the family. For example, every time I wanted to visit them, like when I came home on college break, I was supposed to ask my dad to call them and check on scheduling. Even though I had their phone numbers and mailed them cards and such, it would have been (unreasonably) offensive to my dad to not go through him for in-person visits.
Anyway, both my great-aunt and uncle got very sick around the same time and were moved into the same facility. We had thought that great-uncle was worse off, and I was having pretty regular calls with them, my cousins (their kids), and my dad. One week I had to go on an extremely demanding business trip and was getting about 1-2 hours of sleep per night to the point that I had a call with my dad on Friday night that I essentially have no recollection of because I was falling over from sleep deprivation and telling him I'd have to talk to him after I got back from my work trip. (Another aspect of his narcissism is demanding phone calls whenever he wants them for however long he wants them so that he can ramble on and on.) So, work trip ends on Sunday, I go back to the office, where it is a week-from-hell, especially with my bully boss, and I'm still working around the clock. Wednesday comes and I get a weird text from my mom to call her ASAP. My two parents were in a hearing for their divorce and it was disclosed to the judge that my dad couldn't be available the next day because he had to go to such-and-such area of the state for a funeral. Mom gets very concerned because she is also very close to great-aunt and uncle, and she looks up online fearing that she may find uncle has passed away. But no, it was great-aunt who passed away that Sunday.
Dad found out the news on Sunday and was supposed to have told me, mom, and my brothers, but out of spite he did not. Spite to my mom due to their divorce (he didn't think she deserved half because he was the higher income earner and he's selfish). As for me, I later got a text from my dad after the funeral that was something like, "Just went to your Aunt Mertle's funeral. She died." I later confronted him about why he didn't tell me about it when he found out so that I could have been there and that I was so hurt he didn't tell me. His answer, which to this day he maintains is justified, is that I did not call him back on Monday after I got home from my work trip, so obviously I did not care enough to know what was going on with him and the family. Of course, the rest of the family was horrified when they found out that dad withheld the info from us. Now we don't care about dad's rule and just always communicate directly.
No inheritance component -- just a family member being a jerk about a loved one's death.
What's the point of bringing up old history like that? How can that help anything? Let it fade into history. Forgive and forget. And certainly not when the lady is sick... PEOPLE!
What's the point of bringing up old history like that? How can that help anything? Let it fade into history. Forgive and forget. And certainly not when the lady is sick... PEOPLE!
Eh, I disagree. His timing probably could have been better (and really should NOT have asked for the house), but forgive and forget is often not an option if childhood was abusive.
This thread is kind of like every soap opera or telenovela in the world, at the same time, but without the commercials.
Whenever I read the stories in this thread, I try to imagine the other person's perspective and how they would tell the story differently.Your points are valid. I do find them useful, if only as cautionary tales. I am sort of an interested bystander, as we are in the process of settling my parent's estate. I have one highly "challenging" sibling, so I've actually gleaned a few useful tips from this thread.
When I hear from someone's kid about the circumstances of their parents' fair or unfair inheritances, I am even less inclined to believe we're getting the whole story.
Some of these are funny and shocking, but the majority of them are just sad because we're perpetuating a family feud of which we weren't even involved and thus cannot know the truth of the matter.
Whenever I read the stories in this thread, I try to imagine the other person's perspective and how they would tell the story differently.
When I hear from someone's kid about the circumstances of their parents' fair or unfair inheritances, I am even less inclined to believe we're getting the whole story.
Some of these are funny and shocking, but the majority of them are just sad because we're perpetuating a family feud of which we weren't even involved and thus cannot know the truth of the matter.
I disagree. By reading a first person account of a stranger's story, you perpetuate exactly nothing. You're not involved, will likely never get to know the author on a personal level, and you could quite possibly be reading totally fabricated fiction, for all that it matters. As for getting the whole story, it's an interesting thought. I contributed to this thread a long time ago. I am executor of my mother's estate. My half sister is a drug and alcohol addict, mentally ill, and suffers from a finely honed entitlement/victim delusion that was shaped by years of therapy with a string of "professionals" who taught her that your failures are always attributable to being wronged by others. The estate was carefully divided under the watchful eye of a number of lawyers, advocates and a trust representative. There is no way in hell that any rational person could claim, much less prove, that she wasn't treated fairly and to the letter of the law. As you note, she does have a very different perspective on the probate and how it has damaged her, and her future. In her mind, she had the family home stolen from her, and any liquid assets were her's alone, and to be used for her care, forever. The fact that her mother clearly directed that assets be divided equally among the three children, and that she directed that the family home be liquidated is meaningless to my sister. The fact that she would of been unable to keep any significant assets, and still be eligible for Medicaid or other state and federal aid, is meaningless to her. The fact that she would of possibly been forced to forfeit a million dollars in assets to repay these agencies is also not every going to be a part of her reality. So, like many of the Bat Shit crazy families that members here rant about, my sister has a very different perspective an opinion of our personal inheritance drama. Is it rational to listen to both sides of the story, and reach a conclusion, when one side is not really "all there" due to substance abuse, mental illness, or much more commonly, having become obsessed with greed to the point that they are no longer rational? We you hear a story of a multi-generational battle that wages on, since somebody is sure that they got screwed out of aunt Bessie's baby grand piano, in 1956, it says much about the human condition. Expecting that the "other side" of the story is a valuable and missing piece, can often lead to disappointment.
I disagree. By reading a first person account of a stranger's story, you perpetuate exactly nothing. You're not involved, will likely never get to know the author on a personal level, and you could quite possibly be reading totally fabricated fiction, for all that it matters. As for getting the whole story, it's an interesting thought. I contributed to this thread a long time ago. I am executor of my mother's estate. My half sister is a drug and alcohol addict, mentally ill, and suffers from a finely honed entitlement/victim delusion that was shaped by years of therapy with a string of "professionals" who taught her that your failures are always attributable to being wronged by others. The estate was carefully divided under the watchful eye of a number of lawyers, advocates and a trust representative. There is no way in hell that any rational person could claim, much less prove, that she wasn't treated fairly and to the letter of the law. As you note, she does have a very different perspective on the probate and how it has damaged her, and her future. In her mind, she had the family home stolen from her, and any liquid assets were her's alone, and to be used for her care, forever. The fact that her mother clearly directed that assets be divided equally among the three children, and that she directed that the family home be liquidated is meaningless to my sister. The fact that she would of been unable to keep any significant assets, and still be eligible for Medicaid or other state and federal aid, is meaningless to her. The fact that she would of possibly been forced to forfeit a million dollars in assets to repay these agencies is also not every going to be a part of her reality. So, like many of the Bat Shit crazy families that members here rant about, my sister has a very different perspective an opinion of our personal inheritance drama. Is it rational to listen to both sides of the story, and reach a conclusion, when one side is not really "all there" due to substance abuse, mental illness, or much more commonly, having become obsessed with greed to the point that they are no longer rational? We you hear a story of a multi-generational battle that wages on, since somebody is sure that they got screwed out of aunt Bessie's baby grand piano, in 1956, it says much about the human condition. Expecting that the "other side" of the story is a valuable and missing piece, can often lead to disappointment.
What amazes me when I read this thread is: Just how many of us have a sibling exactly like what Paddedhat describes. One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
I haven't given my full inheritance story here, as it just unfolded within the last few months (and still has little new dramas pop up). It isn't altogether different from so many above, so I'll just refrain from long detailed story.
Grandma dies in her 90s after a few months of stepped up nursing home care, which mercifully cut short both her cognitive decline and the outflow of assets from the trust to the care facility. Grandma's will for her estate and the Trust are carefully poured over for instructions. The Trust allows for extra expenses from the estate to be paid with Trust funds and remaining funds are to be distributed to heirs per stirpes minus any outstanding loans. Grandma's estate is to be divided among the three surviving children, cutting myself and my siblings out entirely. Sis1 and my mom are outraged and Bro1 doesn't care as long as he gets money (which he won't). Sis2 pretends to be outraged, but takes the opportunity to also pretend she's magnanimous by declaring that she only wants a few items (never mind they are jewelry pieces holding almost half the value of the estate) and that my sibs and I should benefit from the estate (subtracted from Sis1 and Bro1's portion, natch).
Whenever I read the stories in this thread, I try to imagine the other person's perspective and how they would tell the story differently.
When I hear from someone's kid about the circumstances of their parents' fair or unfair inheritances, I am even less inclined to believe we're getting the whole story.
Some of these are funny and shocking, but the majority of them are just sad because we're perpetuating a family feud of which we weren't even involved and thus cannot know the truth of the matter.
I disagree. By reading a first person account of a stranger's story, you perpetuate exactly nothing. You're not involved, will likely never get to know the author on a personal level, and you could quite possibly be reading totally fabricated fiction, for all that it matters. As for getting the whole story, it's an interesting thought. I contributed to this thread a long time ago. I am executor of my mother's estate. My half sister is a drug and alcohol addict, mentally ill, and suffers from a finely honed entitlement/victim delusion that was shaped by years of therapy with a string of "professionals" who taught her that your failures are always attributable to being wronged by others. The estate was carefully divided under the watchful eye of a number of lawyers, advocates and a trust representative. There is no way in hell that any rational person could claim, much less prove, that she wasn't treated fairly and to the letter of the law. As you note, she does have a very different perspective on the probate and how it has damaged her, and her future. In her mind, she had the family home stolen from her, and any liquid assets were her's alone, and to be used for her care, forever. The fact that her mother clearly directed that assets be divided equally among the three children, and that she directed that the family home be liquidated is meaningless to my sister. The fact that she would of been unable to keep any significant assets, and still be eligible for Medicaid or other state and federal aid, is meaningless to her. The fact that she would of possibly been forced to forfeit a million dollars in assets to repay these agencies is also not every going to be a part of her reality. So, like many of the Bat Shit crazy families that members here rant about, my sister has a very different perspective an opinion of our personal inheritance drama. Is it rational to listen to both sides of the story, and reach a conclusion, when one side is not really "all there" due to substance abuse, mental illness, or much more commonly, having become obsessed with greed to the point that they are no longer rational? Wene you hear a story of a multi-generational battle that wages on, since somebody is sure that they got screwed out of aunt Bessie's baby grand piano, in 1956, it says much about the human condition. Expecting that the "other side" of the story is a valuable and missing piece, can often lead to disappointment.
Grandma dies in her 90s after a few months of stepped up nursing home care, which mercifully cut short both her cognitive decline and the outflow of assets from the trust to the care facility. Grandma's will for her estate and the Trust are carefully poured over for instructions. The Trust allows for extra expenses from the estate to be paid with Trust funds and remaining funds are to be distributed to heirs per stirpes minus any outstanding loans. Grandma's estate is to be divided among the three surviving children, cutting myself and my siblings out entirely. Sis1 and my mom are outraged and Bro1 doesn't care as long as he gets money (which he won't). Sis2 pretends to be outraged, but takes the opportunity to also pretend she's magnanimous by declaring that she only wants a few items (never mind they are jewelry pieces holding almost half the value of the estate) and that my sibs and I should benefit from the estate (subtracted from Sis1 and Bro1's portion, natch).
That's not how per stirpes works. "Per stirpes" translates as "by branch" - if any of the original descendants is already dead, their share passes to their own descendants. In this case: Bro2 is dead, so his kids get his share. It does NOT go back into the pot for the remaining siblings.
What amazes me when I read this thread is: Just how many of us have a sibling exactly like what Paddedhat describes. One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
I haven't given my full inheritance story here, as it just unfolded within the last few months (and still has little new dramas pop up). It isn't altogether different from so many above, so I'll just refrain from long detailed story.
The "4th Law" rocks. After my dad announced that he and his 4th wife were divorcing, I looked him in the eye and said, "ya know, maybe it's you" LOL. Thanks for laugh.
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
When I said "we're perpetuating a family feud" I meant the authors of the stories, including me. Not anyone who is simply reading someone else's tale.
PaddedHat, I'm sorry you have had this experience, and my comment wasn't intended to invalidate your stories. My comment was designed to make us all aware that your sister's perspective may be getting written somewhere as well, or passed on to her heirs, who end up thinking that you're the jerk. It's probably also very likely that some of us on this board may be "Spork's Crazies". And by "us", I definitely don't mean "me". ;)
Right? Not sure if Spork is the ultimate skilled troll or a astute scholar of highly uncomfortable truths.One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
The "4th Law" rocks. After my dad announced that he and his 4th wife were divorcing, I looked him in the eye and said, "ya know, maybe it's you" LOL. Thanks for laugh.
I think that is a lesson that many of us need to learn more regularly. The world may be messed up but sometimes when our lives our continually so, it may be use who are the issue.
My fourth year of university:
- During a 48-hour programming contest, in the last 18 hours my teammembers basically collapsed and the team had to withdraw
- For the ACM Programming contest qualifier when my school was deciding on three three-person teams to send, my teammates from the previous bullet petitioned the coach to not place me on a team with them. I also petitioned the coach to place any girls before me in our internal ranking _iff_ we were close in ranking (I wanted some gender diversity instead of fielding three three-man teams). These two things worked against me and despite ranking about tied for 2nd in our internal ranking, I effectively finished in 11th.
- Final commerce project, someone got a bit frustrated at me.
- Team effectively dissolved in final CS team project. In-fighting
- Interviewed for a job at Company X. Did stellar at it. Didn't get position
A few months later I cold call Company X. I get hired. Fantastic job. Loved my colleagues. Months after being an employee my supervisor pulls me aside and says they have to be honest with me. They were the one that suggested not to hire me out of university and disagreed with my hiring. They said they sensed they wouldn't have worked well with me but the evidence after working alongside for months 'proved' otherwise. I explained their initial expectation was correct. I explained my last year of university to them and how I realized after graduating that it is almost impossible that all those things happened and I wasn't at fault for causing it. I looked at my self, contemplated ways to change and improve and it is that version that he liked working with.
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
Only one? Woo!
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
Only one? Woo!
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
I disagree with this. The anonymous internet lets a person get a story / viewpoint off their chest and out of their head, without harming anyone. It is one of the best ways to let go an issue that has been bothering you.... A bit like a journal or writing a letter that you throw away.Whenever I read the stories in this thread, I try to imagine the other person's perspective and how they would tell the story differently.
When I hear from someone's kid about the circumstances of their parents' fair or unfair inheritances, I am even less inclined to believe we're getting the whole story.
Some of these are funny and shocking, but the majority of them are just sad because we're perpetuating a family feud of which we weren't even involved and thus cannot know the truth of the matter.
I disagree. By reading a first person account of a stranger's story, you perpetuate exactly nothing. You're not involved, will likely never get to know the author on a personal level, and you could quite possibly be reading totally fabricated fiction, for all that it matters. As for getting the whole story, it's an interesting thought. I contributed to this thread a long time ago. I am executor of my mother's estate. My half sister is a drug and alcohol addict, mentally ill, and suffers from a finely honed entitlement/victim delusion that was shaped by years of therapy with a string of "professionals" who taught her that your failures are always attributable to being wronged by others. The estate was carefully divided under the watchful eye of a number of lawyers, advocates and a trust representative. There is no way in hell that any rational person could claim, much less prove, that she wasn't treated fairly and to the letter of the law. As you note, she does have a very different perspective on the probate and how it has damaged her, and her future. In her mind, she had the family home stolen from her, and any liquid assets were her's alone, and to be used for her care, forever. The fact that her mother clearly directed that assets be divided equally among the three children, and that she directed that the family home be liquidated is meaningless to my sister. The fact that she would of been unable to keep any significant assets, and still be eligible for Medicaid or other state and federal aid, is meaningless to her. The fact that she would of possibly been forced to forfeit a million dollars in assets to repay these agencies is also not every going to be a part of her reality. So, like many of the Bat Shit crazy families that members here rant about, my sister has a very different perspective an opinion of our personal inheritance drama. Is it rational to listen to both sides of the story, and reach a conclusion, when one side is not really "all there" due to substance abuse, mental illness, or much more commonly, having become obsessed with greed to the point that they are no longer rational? Wene you hear a story of a multi-generational battle that wages on, since somebody is sure that they got screwed out of aunt Bessie's baby grand piano, in 1956, it says much about the human condition. Expecting that the "other side" of the story is a valuable and missing piece, can often lead to disappointment.
When I said "we're perpetuating a family feud" I meant the authors of the stories, including me. Not anyone who is simply reading someone else's tale.
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
How about if we're all a bit crazy?
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
How about if we're all a bit crazy?
That's my family. One of the uncles once custom printed a batch of t-shirts for us that said "(LastName) Family Reunion: You don't have to be crazy to be part of this family, but it sure helps!"
Also, everybody reading this - As a mustachian, you're definitely the crazy person in society's eyes.
When I said "we're perpetuating a family feud" I meant the authors of the stories, including me. Not anyone who is simply reading someone else's tale.
PaddedHat, I'm sorry you have had this experience, and my comment wasn't intended to invalidate your stories. My comment was designed to make us all aware that your sister's perspective may be getting written somewhere as well, or passed on to her heirs, who end up thinking that you're the jerk. It's probably also very likely that some of us on this board may be "Spork's Crazies". And by "us", I definitely don't mean "me". ;)
Oh, I see what you are saying. I never took your comments as invalidating anything anybody was writing, actually. The whole idea of a mirrored reality, where the other side is also banging away at the key board, venting about their bat shit crazy relatives, (who by their definition are you and I) is actually a pretty entertaining thought. It does have some basis in my case, as my sister has effectively burned all bridges to close relatives, mutual friends, people who have never been involuntarily committed on psychatric holds, other gainfully employed rational adults, etc.....But, I do receive the occasional report that she managed to strike up Facebook relationships with really strange, and/or very distant relatives. Maybe she is plotting something........................................
Just one more point:
Every so often, you will read someone's first-person account of Drama, and you will realize that the Teller is DEFINITELY the one in the wrong. It's kind of funny, really, that someone's description that is so clearly biased towards themselves also points them out as the ultimately guilty party. And then you think, "Wow, if this is the impression I get from Teller's words, what the heck would the Other Side sound like?" I haven't seen it happen often on this forum, but if you look at sites like etiquettehell.com, you will see it occasionally.
Just one more point:
Every so often, you will read someone's first-person account of Drama, and you will realize that the Teller is DEFINITELY the one in the wrong. It's kind of funny, really, that someone's description that is so clearly biased towards themselves also points them out as the ultimately guilty party. And then you think, "Wow, if this is the impression I get from Teller's words, what the heck would the Other Side sound like?" I haven't seen it happen often on this forum, but if you look at sites like etiquettehell.com, you will see it occasionally.
You mean like this (http://www.askamanager.org/2016/08/i-emailed-my-girlfriends-boss-to-complain-that-he-encroached-on-our-relationship.html)?
Just mind-blowingly clueless about how totally inappropriate and disgusting this was. Wow. Trainwreck douchecanoe there, and I hope to high heaven the girlfriend dumped his ass the instant she got home.
Just one more point:
Every so often, you will read someone's first-person account of Drama, and you will realize that the Teller is DEFINITELY the one in the wrong. It's kind of funny, really, that someone's description that is so clearly biased towards themselves also points them out as the ultimately guilty party. And then you think, "Wow, if this is the impression I get from Teller's words, what the heck would the Other Side sound like?" I haven't seen it happen often on this forum, but if you look at sites like etiquettehell.com, you will see it occasionally.
You mean like this (http://www.askamanager.org/2016/08/i-emailed-my-girlfriends-boss-to-complain-that-he-encroached-on-our-relationship.html)?
Just mind-blowingly clueless about how totally inappropriate and disgusting this was. Wow. Trainwreck douchecanoe there, and I hope to high heaven the girlfriend dumped his ass the instant she got home.
Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Not really drama, but we've got an unusual situation (I think). DH got a letter from the trustee of an estate today, and his share is <2% of said estate. The money, fine, he'll be happy to take that, but he also will get the same small percentage of a dozen properties in and around a small town in NC, some of which is vacant land, some is vacant buildings, and some, I believe, is rented. So now there will be over 40 people, spread out across the country, who each own a small amount of this bunch of real estate.
At this point, we don't even know if the rents will cover taxes and maintenance, and nothing really sells in that area. Plus, trying to get over 3 dozen people to agree on anything... Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Not really drama, but we've got an unusual situation (I think). DH got a letter from the trustee of an estate today, and his share is <2% of said estate. The money, fine, he'll be happy to take that, but he also will get the same small percentage of a dozen properties in and around a small town in NC, some of which is vacant land, some is vacant buildings, and some, I believe, is rented. So now there will be over 40 people, spread out across the country, who each own a small amount of this bunch of real estate.
At this point, we don't even know if the rents will cover taxes and maintenance, and nothing really sells in that area. Plus, trying to get over 3 dozen people to agree on anything... Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Get the estate to liquidate the real estate and distribute cash. Or at the very least put the beneficiaries in touch so that you can sell off your share (if you go cheap enough, someone will want it.)
Seriously.
Not really drama, but we've got an unusual situation (I think). DH got a letter from the trustee of an estate today, and his share is <2% of said estate. The money, fine, he'll be happy to take that, but he also will get the same small percentage of a dozen properties in and around a small town in NC, some of which is vacant land, some is vacant buildings, and some, I believe, is rented. So now there will be over 40 people, spread out across the country, who each own a small amount of this bunch of real estate.
At this point, we don't even know if the rents will cover taxes and maintenance, and nothing really sells in that area. Plus, trying to get over 3 dozen people to agree on anything... Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Get the estate to liquidate the real estate and distribute cash. Or at the very least put the beneficiaries in touch so that you can sell off your share (if you go cheap enough, someone will want it.)
Seriously.
Getting that many people to ever agree will be a nightmare. A friend of mine spent about 10 years untangling a situation where about 10 family members inherited a property. It was ridiculous.
DBF found this one (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/3du5iq/got_caught_at_target_and_now_im_fucked/) in some "Best of Reddit" post.
DBF found this one (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/3du5iq/got_caught_at_target_and_now_im_fucked/) in some "Best of Reddit" post.
Oh my god. And the same person posted this (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/4vgwrq/caught_at_marshalls_but_i_ran_from_lp_and_got_away/) just a few days ago...
DBF found this one (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/3du5iq/got_caught_at_target_and_now_im_fucked/) in some "Best of Reddit" post.
Oh my god. And the same person posted this (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/4vgwrq/caught_at_marshalls_but_i_ran_from_lp_and_got_away/) just a few days ago...
Wow, that is horrifying.
Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
I'm no expert, but perhaps a partial disclaimer will work.
DBF found this one (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/3du5iq/got_caught_at_target_and_now_im_fucked/) in some "Best of Reddit" post.
Oh my god. And the same person posted this (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/4vgwrq/caught_at_marshalls_but_i_ran_from_lp_and_got_away/) just a few days ago...
Not really drama, but we've got an unusual situation (I think). DH got a letter from the trustee of an estate today, and his share is <2% of said estate. The money, fine, he'll be happy to take that, but he also will get the same small percentage of a dozen properties in and around a small town in NC, some of which is vacant land, some is vacant buildings, and some, I believe, is rented. So now there will be over 40 people, spread out across the country, who each own a small amount of this bunch of real estate.
At this point, we don't even know if the rents will cover taxes and maintenance, and nothing really sells in that area. Plus, trying to get over 3 dozen people to agree on anything... Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Get the estate to liquidate the real estate and distribute cash. Or at the very least put the beneficiaries in touch so that you can sell off your share (if you go cheap enough, someone will want it.)
Seriously.
Getting that many people to ever agree will be a nightmare. A friend of mine spent about 10 years untangling a situation where about 10 family members inherited a property. It was ridiculous.
Inherited real estate is a nightmare because inevitably one or more of the recipients values it well above market price. Sometimes it's somewhat legitimate (childhood home, lots of memories, whatever), but often there's just something about owning a piece of property that fries people's brains. It becomes their God-given duty to act in the best interests of everyone else, even if nobody else sees it that way.
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
As technology marches on, LOL. I have a box in the local post office, since our neighborhood cannot get delivery to individual houses. every year, at least two idiot phone book companies pay the post office to deliver a metric shit ton of their latest phone books. This involves the local postal employees being forced to stuff thousands of books into PO BOXES that are too small, and pissing off hundreds of customers who have to dig them out of the boxes and stack them on the floor, any available counter space, and wherever there is room to leave them behind at the post office. The vast majority of the customer base has zero interest in a phone book, but the publishers still trick idiot businesses into spending silly amounts to advertise, based on the huge volume of books they place in every home in the area. The USPS then pays a recycling outfit to pick up a few thousand pounds of worthless phone books. It's capitalism at it's best.
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
For several years I provided housing to a pile of NatGeo mags. I kept the most interesting dozen and gave the rest away. You can get the whole collection on DVD for cheap.
I have a reprint of a 1906 Sears catalog that has been in the family since I was born. Have thumbed through that thing a thousand times. I'd love to look through the different catalogs but I don't want to own them. Once upon a time yes when I was more of a packrat, not now.
Telephone books were bagged and laid at the end of the driveway of everyone for miles. We picked up our's and put it straight into the recycle bin. Hate it but we haven't used a phone book in years.
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
For several years I provided housing to a pile of NatGeo mags. I kept the most interesting dozen and gave the rest away. You can get the whole collection on DVD for cheap.
I have a reprint of a 1906 Sears catalog that has been in the family since I was born. Have thumbed through that thing a thousand times. I'd love to look through the different catalogs but I don't want to own them. Once upon a time yes when I was more of a packrat, not now.
Telephone books were bagged and laid at the end of the driveway of everyone for miles. We picked up our's and put it straight into the recycle bin. Hate it but we haven't used a phone book in years.
Ooooh, I can help with this! Go to www.yellowpagesoptout.com (http://www.yellowpagesoptout.com) and you can get off the delivery lists for phone books. I had to do it a year or so ago--we get 4 *different* phone books every year--what a ridiculous waste of paper.
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
For several years I provided housing to a pile of NatGeo mags. I kept the most interesting dozen and gave the rest away. You can get the whole collection on DVD for cheap.
I have a reprint of a 1906 Sears catalog that has been in the family since I was born. Have thumbed through that thing a thousand times. I'd love to look through the different catalogs but I don't want to own them. Once upon a time yes when I was more of a packrat, not now.
Telephone books were bagged and laid at the end of the driveway of everyone for miles. We picked up our's and put it straight into the recycle bin. Hate it but we haven't used a phone book in years.
Ooooh, I can help with this! Go to www.yellowpagesoptout.com (http://www.yellowpagesoptout.com) and you can get off the delivery lists for phone books. I had to do it a year or so ago--we get 4 *different* phone books every year--what a ridiculous waste of paper.
Surprisingly interesting article from msn: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-infuriating-reason-you-still-get-a-phonebook-delivered-every-year/ar-AA5VCAJ (http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-infuriating-reason-you-still-get-a-phonebook-delivered-every-year/ar-AA5VCAJ) Apparently as of even a few years ago yellow pages were profitable even with tens of millions being tossed in the trash.
Ooooh, I can help with this! Go to www.yellowpagesoptout.com and you can get off the delivery lists for phone books. I had to do it a year or so ago--we get 4 *different* phone books every year--what a ridiculous waste of paper.
This one of the few things that I am unable to opt out of. The phone book companies will bomb the local post office with tons of books, all addressed as "postal customer" and zip code. I have discussed the issue with our local postal employees. They are honest about the fact that they are a bit paranoid with congress attempting to destroy their pensions, and all the other BS their employer dishes out. Their take is that ANY piece of mail, junk or not, is a good thing, so the ritual of hauling a few tons of new phone books off to the recycler is just another way to stay busy, and employed.
*snip*
Wait, if you opt out of getting a phone book, what does your kid sit on for his haircuts?LadyMuMu's MIL's Encyclopedia Britannica.
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
My FIL is a hoarder, and one of the things I dread most in life is having to clean out his house when he is gone. I hope things work out in a way that I don't have to be involved.
My FIL is a hoarder, and one of the things I dread most in life is having to clean out his house when he is gone. I hope things work out in a way that I don't have to be involved.
Just call the local fire dept. Maybe they'd like to use the house for a training day. That is literally what happened here once.
This all makes me grateful for how my parents live: they're getting up in years, and they've been steadily decluttering their home, shipping and/or delivering boxes of their kids stuff to all the kids, getting rid of lots of old stuff, etc. A couple months ago, Mom brought me a 12" stack of my kindergarten schoolwork. DW and I had an enjoyable half hour going through it, and we kept a few things, but tossed the rest.My FIL is a hoarder, and one of the things I dread most in life is having to clean out his house when he is gone. I hope things work out in a way that I don't have to be involved.Just call the local fire dept. Maybe they'd like to use the house for a training day. That is literally what happened here once.
Interesting. I remember seeing on one of the Hoarders TV shows how dangerous hoarded homes are for fire-fighters. IIRC, they may have condemned a home or taken it off the list of places where the fire department would enter due to the extreme danger that the interior conditions posed. Sorry if their house burns, but I wouldn't want a fire-fighter to risk their life trying to get through all the booby-traps.
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
As technology marches on, LOL. I have a box in the local post office, since our neighborhood cannot get delivery to individual houses. every year, at least two idiot phone book companies pay the post office to deliver a metric shit ton of their latest phone books. This involves the local postal employees being forced to stuff thousands of books into PO BOXES that are too small, and pissing off hundreds of customers who have to dig them out of the boxes and stack them on the floor, any available counter space, and wherever there is room to leave them behind at the post office. The vast majority of the customer base has zero interest in a phone book, but the publishers still trick idiot businesses into spending silly amounts to advertise, based on the huge volume of books they place in every home in the area. The USPS then pays a recycling outfit to pick up a few thousand pounds of worthless phone books. It's capitalism at it's best.
Eternal Wonderer ...........this is a terrible story!I agree. I hope you are able to find some legal help. I would like to think that the law in Canada would require his assets go to his children, but I don't really know.
I am so sorry you had to put up with this "stinkin thinking".
May this be resolved in your favour, soon.
Good Luck.
Eternal Wonderer ...........this is a terrible story!I agree. I hope you are able to find some legal help. I would like to think that the law in Canada would require his assets go to his children, but I don't really know.
I am so sorry you had to put up with this "stinkin thinking".
May this be resolved in your favour, soon.
Good Luck.
Eternal Wonderer ...........this is a terrible story!I agree. I hope you are able to find some legal help. I would like to think that the law in Canada would require his assets go to his children, but I don't really know.
I am so sorry you had to put up with this "stinkin thinking".
May this be resolved in your favour, soon.
Good Luck.
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
Wait, if you opt out of getting a phone book, what does your kid sit on for his haircuts?
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
If I lived near your MIL, I would not only take that EB set, I'd pay her for it!! I deeply regret not taking my parents' set when they downsized in a move. It's a nostalgia thing for me, and kind of a decor thing I guess, not a research tool. Sadly, the cost to ship something that large and heavy would no doubt be prohibitive
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
If I lived near your MIL, I would not only take that EB set, I'd pay her for it!! I deeply regret not taking my parents' set when they downsized in a move. It's a nostalgia thing for me, and kind of a decor thing I guess, not a research tool. Sadly, the cost to ship something that large and heavy would no doubt be prohibitive
If you want one, keep an eye on CraigsList and maybe make a post requesting one. People are giving them away or selling them very cheap. Also look out for any schools or libraries in your area that are moving, renovating, etc. Go to your library's annual used book sale, if they do that (most libraries in my area do this, usually from books donated for the purpose). When my high school was building a new library, they gave away a bunch of books (including two full encyclopedias) rather than move them.
Anyway, that's the inheritance drama in my life right now, and yes, I'm aware that it lies entirely with my husband.
Anyway, that's the inheritance drama in my life right now, and yes, I'm aware that it lies entirely with my husband.
What in the world could be causing your husband to want to dishonor his mother's wishes for distribution of her assets? And to instigate an unnecessary conflict with his brother, who just wants to put this all to rest?
He has self esteem issues, and defines success as making his own fortune. Receiving money from his parents makes him feel like a failure, and the greater the amount of money the bigger of a failure it makes him feel.
He's also not very empathic and has trouble looking at things from other people's point of view -- for example, his brother's, who is even better off than we are financially and probably doesn't feel great hanging on to money that his late mother designated to his younger brother. Or his late mom's, who wanted each of her children to equally inherit her wealth, as any parent of multiple children should understand.
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
For several years I provided housing to a pile of NatGeo mags. I kept the most interesting dozen and gave the rest away. You can get the whole collection on DVD for cheap.
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
If I lived near your MIL, I would not only take that EB set, I'd pay her for it!! I deeply regret not taking my parents' set when they downsized in a move. It's a nostalgia thing for me, and kind of a decor thing I guess, not a research tool. Sadly, the cost to ship something that large and heavy would no doubt be prohibitive
If you want one, keep an eye on CraigsList and maybe make a post requesting one. People are giving them away or selling them very cheap. Also look out for any schools or libraries in your area that are moving, renovating, etc. Go to your library's annual used book sale, if they do that (most libraries in my area do this, usually from books donated for the purpose). When my high school was building a new library, they gave away a bunch of books (including two full encyclopedias) rather than move them.
Anyway, that's the inheritance drama in my life right now, and yes, I'm aware that it lies entirely with my husband.
What in the world could be causing your husband to want to dishonor his mother's wishes for distribution of her assets? And to instigate an unnecessary conflict with his brother, who just wants to put this all to rest?
He has self esteem issues, and defines success as making his own fortune. Receiving money from his parents makes him feel like a failure, and the greater the amount of money the bigger of a failure it makes him feel.
He's also not very empathic and has trouble looking at things from other people's point of view -- for example, his brother's, who is even better off than we are financially and probably doesn't feel great hanging on to money that his late mother designated to his younger brother. Or his late mom's, who wanted each of her children to equally inherit her wealth, as any parent of multiple children should understand.
That's what I would suggest. Let the money sit there unmolested until emotions have plenty of time to settle. It's not like you're in desperate need of that money now. And you could always give it back later if, a few years down the road, that's what you want to do.Anyway, that's the inheritance drama in my life right now, and yes, I'm aware that it lies entirely with my husband.
What in the world could be causing your husband to want to dishonor his mother's wishes for distribution of her assets? And to instigate an unnecessary conflict with his brother, who just wants to put this all to rest?
He has self esteem issues, and defines success as making his own fortune. Receiving money from his parents makes him feel like a failure, and the greater the amount of money the bigger of a failure it makes him feel.
He's also not very empathic and has trouble looking at things from other people's point of view -- for example, his brother's, who is even better off than we are financially and probably doesn't feel great hanging on to money that his late mother designated to his younger brother. Or his late mom's, who wanted each of her children to equally inherit her wealth, as any parent of multiple children should understand.
Take it, put it in a separate account and let it grow separately than the money you've made/saved/invested.
- Remind him he doesn't need to decide now what to do with the money.
- See if maybe he'd go to counseling. Maybe some unresolved issues with mother's death that are wrapped up here in addition to his ideas of success/failure.
If it were my husband, I'd be tempted to shake him until some sense dropped in.
- If he doesn't accept the money, maybe remind him that you would possibly liable for gift taxes (as you are giving it to one brother rather than simple disclaiming the inheritance).
- Also ask him how the sister might feel about this situation - where one brother gets nothing, and the other brother gets 2x what she got. Could this set up bad blood between siblings?
- Do you have kids? Do you plan to? Ask him whether he thinks his mom would be upset that the money didn't go to benefit your kids (presumably down the line many years when you pass away) as she intended. See if he might be interested in using the money to set up a family trust for them.
- Tell him even if he doesn't want keep the money, he could give this away to charities who can make great use of it.
- Remind him he doesn't need to decide now what to do with the money.
- Gently, very diplomatically, convey that while this is his inheritance, you are married, a team, and you would like him to consider your opinions and how it affects you and your life too.
- See if maybe he'd go to counseling. Maybe some unresolved issues with mother's death that are wrapped up here in addition to his ideas of success/failure.
Not really drama, but we've got an unusual situation (I think). DH got a letter from the trustee of an estate today, and his share is <2% of said estate. The money, fine, he'll be happy to take that, but he also will get the same small percentage of a dozen properties in and around a small town in NC, some of which is vacant land, some is vacant buildings, and some, I believe, is rented. So now there will be over 40 people, spread out across the country, who each own a small amount of this bunch of real estate.
At this point, we don't even know if the rents will cover taxes and maintenance, and nothing really sells in that area. Plus, trying to get over 3 dozen people to agree on anything... Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Get the estate to liquidate the real estate and distribute cash. Or at the very least put the beneficiaries in touch so that you can sell off your share (if you go cheap enough, someone will want it.)
Seriously.
Getting that many people to ever agree will be a nightmare. A friend of mine spent about 10 years untangling a situation where about 10 family members inherited a property. It was ridiculous.
I once had a true good ole' boy from the swamps of Louisiana, as an employee. He came to me with a document, as he needed a witness. He was inheriting a couple of hundred bucks as a very distant relative of a long departed, VERY large landholder in the swamps. I asked how many of his kin were getting a little bit of the pie? He told me that they numbered in the hundreds. I imagine at that point, it's a bit like a class action suit. legal council makes a ton, to make sure that each third cousin get's a bit.
I have another buddy that ended up with a hell of a pile of cheddar, well over a million, but it took nearly forty years until the estate was finally settled. His grandfather was sharp and bought a ton of farm land, and woodland, before WW2, when our local farmers were basically operating on a sustenance level, and barely feeding their own families. A lot of farms were bought for less than $10/acre. He held on to most of it, then died, quite old, in the early 1960s. The battle to decide exactly who got what % of the pie lasted for the next twenty years, or more, before the first property was liquidated. The battle even went to the state supreme court. As sons and daughters died off, it would cause new pissing contests to flare up. It became the life's work of one estate attorney, who even wrote a book about handling one of the longest contested estates in our state's history. The final property was liquidated in the early 2000s.
Or try Charles Dickens' Bleak House that includes, the story of a long running lawsuit in Jardyce vs Jardyce about an inheritance. Old Dickens knew his human race, they had greedy lawyers even back then tying up estates in the courts for decades, them earning much on the backs of inheritors.Not really drama, but we've got an unusual situation (I think). DH got a letter from the trustee of an estate today, and his share is <2% of said estate. The money, fine, he'll be happy to take that, but he also will get the same small percentage of a dozen properties in and around a small town in NC, some of which is vacant land, some is vacant buildings, and some, I believe, is rented. So now there will be over 40 people, spread out across the country, who each own a small amount of this bunch of real estate.
At this point, we don't even know if the rents will cover taxes and maintenance, and nothing really sells in that area. Plus, trying to get over 3 dozen people to agree on anything... Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Get the estate to liquidate the real estate and distribute cash. Or at the very least put the beneficiaries in touch so that you can sell off your share (if you go cheap enough, someone will want it.)
Seriously.
Getting that many people to ever agree will be a nightmare. A friend of mine spent about 10 years untangling a situation where about 10 family members inherited a property. It was ridiculous.
I once had a true good ole' boy from the swamps of Louisiana, as an employee. He came to me with a document, as he needed a witness. He was inheriting a couple of hundred bucks as a very distant relative of a long departed, VERY large landholder in the swamps. I asked how many of his kin were getting a little bit of the pie? He told me that they numbered in the hundreds. I imagine at that point, it's a bit like a class action suit. legal council makes a ton, to make sure that each third cousin get's a bit.
I have another buddy that ended up with a hell of a pile of cheddar, well over a million, but it took nearly forty years until the estate was finally settled. His grandfather was sharp and bought a ton of farm land, and woodland, before WW2, when our local farmers were basically operating on a sustenance level, and barely feeding their own families. A lot of farms were bought for less than $10/acre. He held on to most of it, then died, quite old, in the early 1960s. The battle to decide exactly who got what % of the pie lasted for the next twenty years, or more, before the first property was liquidated. The battle even went to the state supreme court. As sons and daughters died off, it would cause new pissing contests to flare up. It became the life's work of one estate attorney, who even wrote a book about handling one of the longest contested estates in our state's history. The final property was liquidated in the early 2000s.
I don't have any stories, but do you have the title of this book? Haven't googled anything just curious if you knew it offhand.
Or try Charles Dickens' Bleak House that includes, the story of a long running lawsuit in Jardyce vs Jardyce about an inheritance.
apologies if I brought anyone down
My MIL now tells anyone who will listen all I care about is money, but I think she is projecting her own actions onto me. So I learnt some hard lessons and moved on. Would I do it again? NO!!
My FIL was telling me he is meeting with a lawyer to put everything into a trust. He's trying to figure out how to get the house passed to my wife and my BIL.
Oh no. No no no no no. My wife and I don't ever want to live there. My BIL, 30, still lives there. If the house is left to "us", it will basically be left to my BIL. FIL says that then he'd have to buy us out of it--that doesn't work!
I told him that the easisest estates that my parents have dealt with (3 of them) were the ones that had basically nothing of value left--the cars and jewelry had been gifted or sold; any real estate had been sold, etc. The ones that had a car or a house left were a pain. PLEASE do not leave anything of value when you die, otherwise we'll have to deal with BIL, who IMHO is an idiot.
My FIL was telling me he is meeting with a lawyer to put everything into a trust. He's trying to figure out how to get the house passed to my wife and my BIL.
Oh no. No no no no no. My wife and I don't ever want to live there. My BIL, 30, still lives there. If the house is left to "us", it will basically be left to my BIL. FIL says that then he'd have to buy us out of it--that doesn't work!
I told him that the easisest estates that my parents have dealt with (3 of them) were the ones that had basically nothing of value left--the cars and jewelry had been gifted or sold; any real estate had been sold, etc. The ones that had a car or a house left were a pain. PLEASE do not leave anything of value when you die, otherwise we'll have to deal with BIL, who IMHO is an idiot.
Of course I still do need to keep pushing to find out once and for all if he had a will and take it from there.
Interesting situation here:
Credit card debt after cosigner dies
http://money.stackexchange.com/questions/70191/credit-card-debt-after-cosigner-dies
"My father is a cosigner on my brothers credit cards. He died last month.
My brother is not paying off the debt. Can we remove my fathers name? Is
my dads estate responsible? My brother owes more than the estate is worth.
My mom will be left destitute if the credit companies go after the estate."
Interesting situation here:
Credit card debt after cosigner dies
http://money.stackexchange.com/questions/70191/credit-card-debt-after-cosigner-dies
"My father is a cosigner on my brothers credit cards. He died last month.
My brother is not paying off the debt. Can we remove my fathers name? Is
my dads estate responsible? My brother owes more than the estate is worth.
My mom will be left destitute if the credit companies go after the estate."
I saw that post early yesterday and thought "The mother will be destitute with the debt but alright otherwise? How much money can someone possibly owe on a credit card that needs a cosigner?"
The OP later qualified in a comment:
My mom is in I)linois. The estate is only about 150,000. The debt on the car loans my brother has in my dads name is about 70,000. Credit cards are over 60,000.
Yikes, I feel bad for the mother. Husband dies, she has 7x years of income (more if she will now collect her deceased husbands pension, works etc...) OR will be left with little because somehow her son has 130,000$ in debt from cars and CC.
Interesting situation here:
Credit card debt after cosigner dies
http://money.stackexchange.com/questions/70191/credit-card-debt-after-cosigner-dies
"My father is a cosigner on my brothers credit cards. He died last month.
My brother is not paying off the debt. Can we remove my fathers name? Is
my dads estate responsible? My brother owes more than the estate is worth.
My mom will be left destitute if the credit companies go after the estate."
I saw that post early yesterday and thought "The mother will be destitute with the debt but alright otherwise? How much money can someone possibly owe on a credit card that needs a cosigner?"
The OP later qualified in a comment:
My mom is in I)linois. The estate is only about 150,000. The debt on the car loans my brother has in my dads name is about 70,000. Credit cards are over 60,000.
Yikes, I feel bad for the mother. Husband dies, she has 7x years of income (more if she will now collect her deceased husbands pension, works etc...) OR will be left with little because somehow her son has 130,000$ in debt from cars and CC.
Well, the vehicles get sold ASAP, that wipes out the car debt, and hopefully helps with the CC debt. And the cards have to be closed yesterday. And talk to a lawyer about what to do about the CC debt. Hopefully can just get the husband's name off them somehow.
Illinois isn't a community property state, so unless her signature is on the dotted line as a co-signer, she isn't. Things he owned such as the cars should be liquidated, but I think the smartest thing for her to do would be to declare bankruptcy immediately, hire a lawyer to protect her assets, and make an intelligent argument that everything that can be protected under bankruptcy is "hers" and not her husband's. How the courts determine what belonged to whom will probably be more generous to her than just trying to deal directly with creditors or with the no-good spendypants son.
Real estate, for sure, unless it's tenancy in common which I've heard is the default in Illinois. For a bank account I don't believe it will necessarily be that cut and dried. I've heard of too many cases where a joint account gets frozen after a monetary judgment is awarded. Ideally she shouldn't have to declare bankruptcy for debt that isn't hers, but marriage creates all kinds of financial pitfalls to go along with the tax perks.Illinois isn't a community property state, so unless her signature is on the dotted line as a co-signer, she isn't. Things he owned such as the cars should be liquidated, but I think the smartest thing for her to do would be to declare bankruptcy immediately, hire a lawyer to protect her assets, and make an intelligent argument that everything that can be protected under bankruptcy is "hers" and not her husband's. How the courts determine what belonged to whom will probably be more generous to her than just trying to deal directly with creditors or with the no-good spendypants son.
All true: a spouse is not personally liable for the debts of a deceased spouse. Ask a lawyer if you're in a community property state, but most states aren't that. But she shouldn't have to declare bankruptcy for debts of his that she didn't co-sign on. What she needs is a consumer's rights or debtor's rights attorney, not a bankruptcy attorney.
As for things he owned, whether they should be liquidated depends on how they were held. If they were jointly owned with a right of survivorship, or owned as a "tenancy by the entireties" (something that's only possible between spouses), then they automatically became 100% hers the minute he died--they were never part of his estate and shouldn't be liquidated. If it was a bank account with a payable on death feature, so he owned it alone but it was payable on death to her, I'm 95% sure it should go to her without passing through his estate at all.
Real estate, for sure, unless it's tenancy in common which I've heard is the default in Illinois. For a bank account I don't believe it will necessarily be that cut and dried. I've heard of too many cases where a joint account gets frozen after a monetary judgment is awarded.
Ideally she shouldn't have to declare bankruptcy for debt that isn't hers, but marriage creates all kinds of financial pitfalls to go along with the tax perks.
RE: YOU CANNOT INHERIT YOUR SPOUSE'S DEBT
This is true, but prior to distribution to the wife, the will must pay off all debtors. Leaving very little $ to transfer to the spouse. That is the true problem here... (assets protected by beneficiary designations are exempt)
In addition, many cosigned debts are considered due in full upon death of one of the cosignees...and trigger a claim against the estate for the full amount. This has been a challenge for student loans, for example, cosigned by an aged grandparent who then passes, creating poor credit history.
Unless the son agrees to sell the cars to help pay off the debt, it will likely be applied in full against the estate leaving the wife with very little.
Recently overheard: "Don't worry about your retirement. You'll be taken care of..."This is a great post, great for its imagery of the famly alignments and its sheer truthfulness.
My thought: Be very worried about your retirement and save accordingly. Who would take someone at their word - even family's word - that there would be a lump of money coming some day far off into the future? There are no guarantees.
All I could think of was a conversation 30 years into the future on someone's death bed that amounted to "sorry, we thought we had enough money to live like we did. Good luck with your own elder years with no substantial savings. I wish you could live like we did..."
No word on amounts, what their burn rate is and so forth.
Yeah, just trust me. "You'll be taken care of."
All I could think of was a few members of the extended family sparring over money and inheritances during my childhood.
It was like watching a British medieval period drama where allegiances are made and broken, favors bestowed upon one person and another ignored, lies and promises broken, etc.
And all over very modest amounts of money so a couple of relatives who never made much money of their own could spend freely for a short time.
Recently overheard: "Don't worry about your retirement. You'll be taken care of..."This is a great post, great for its imagery of the famly alignments and its sheer truthfulness.
My thought: Be very worried about your retirement and save accordingly. Who would take someone at their word - even family's word - that there would be a lump of money coming some day far off into the future? There are no guarantees.
All I could think of was a conversation 30 years into the future on someone's death bed that amounted to "sorry, we thought we had enough money to live like we did. Good luck with your own elder years with no substantial savings. I wish you could live like we did..."
No word on amounts, what their burn rate is and so forth.
Yeah, just trust me. "You'll be taken care of."
All I could think of was a few members of the extended family sparring over money and inheritances during my childhood.
It was like watching a British medieval period drama where allegiances are made and broken, favors bestowed upon one person and another ignored, lies and promises broken, etc.
And all over very modest amounts of money so a couple of relatives who never made much money of their own could spend freely for a short time.
It is amazing what small amounts of money people will fight over.
An idea related to the "dont worry, I will leave you money for your old age" ida is the demand from potential inheritors to "give me my inheritence NOW". This assumes that elderly parents will drop dead cleanly, never needing their assets for end of life care which is very expensive.
This is fantastic Squeaker, I had always assumed (maybe incorrectly) that a dowry was an enticement offered to a prospective husband's family as payment for the "trouble" of taking on the family's "worthless girl child". This perspective adds a new level of nuance to the transaction.
Now, back to the drama!
I agree - I too assumed it had something to do with offloading a "worthless girl child". Great little history lesson. I love studying history.
There actually used to be mechanisms for giving an inheritance "now", and in fact the regional economy, legal, and business structure depended on it. It's called a "dowry" system. It worked very well in an agrarian/guild/mercantile economy but not as well in an investment or knowledge economy.
The dowry system was the means by which young women got their share of their parents' assets. .........This dowry, when combined with the tools and personal assets the young man accumulated after finishing his education, would generally be enough to start up a very basic, minimalist household ........
There actually used to be mechanisms for giving an inheritance "now", and in fact the regional economy, legal, and business structure depended on it. It's called a "dowry" system. It worked very well in an agrarian/guild/mercantile economy but not as well in an investment or knowledge economy.
The dowry system was the means by which young women got their share of their parents' assets. .........This dowry, when combined with the tools and personal assets the young man accumulated after finishing his education, would generally be enough to start up a very basic, minimalist household ........
Awesome...
I think today's equivalent of a "Dowry" intended to set a young couple on the path to setting up a basic household would be....
... a subsizided college education (by parents).....?
Squeaker, you're absolutely correct.
I do want to add however, in individual situations, there could be an element of "getting rid of an inconvenient child", though it was rarely that simple. Desire to look good to the neighbors by dedicating a child to the service of God (nuns/monks/priests), and sometimes said individual was mentally ill, and that sometimes involved payments. In general, truly unwanted children would be abandoned, killed, sold into slavery/bondage, etc. Options, criteria, and frequency would vary with the time and culture.
If you're thinking that humans aren't always very nice, you're correct.
And let's be clear: this is not just confined to history but is going on today on a big scale. Newborn girls in many parts of the world have much less chance of making it through childhood than boys, sometimes through neglect, sometimes through more specific action. Older girls are sold to people traffickers and forced to become prostitutes in first world countries. Child murder and child slavery are modern day evils, not just historical ones.
The problem is rampant in some parts of the world mainly for girl kids. Because the parents want a boy baby but can't afford to feed all the girl kids that are born before the boy kid is possibly born, they end up killing the girl kids or leaving them as orphans or selling them. In some rural areas, girl kids survived if they were the oldest (so there is atleast one kid for the parents in case they don't have any more despite trying - also useful to take care of younger siblings because girls were trained in household chores) or if they were the last kid after a slew of boys. As people are getting more educated, this is going down but even now, dowry is a big issue and people try to avoid girl children as a result.And let's be clear: this is not just confined to history but is going on today on a big scale. Newborn girls in many parts of the world have much less chance of making it through childhood than boys, sometimes through neglect, sometimes through more specific action. Older girls are sold to people traffickers and forced to become prostitutes in first world countries. Child murder and child slavery are modern day evils, not just historical ones.
Hysterectomies and vasectomies for everyone! SERIOUSLY! Ought to be easier and encouraged to anyone that isn't dedicated to raising and loving their children. The world is plenty full. I witnessed another tired mother berating and impatient with her two little children last night. They were unhappy. She was unhappy.
We had kids but we never behaved like that!
Squeaker, you're absolutely correct.
I do want to add however, in individual situations, there could be an element of "getting rid of an inconvenient child", though it was rarely that simple. Desire to look good to the neighbors by dedicating a child to the service of God (nuns/monks/priests), and sometimes said individual was mentally ill, and that sometimes involved payments. In general, truly unwanted children would be abandoned, killed, sold into slavery/bondage, etc. Options, criteria, and frequency would vary with the time and culture.
If you're thinking that humans aren't always very nice, you're correct.
Humans are almost never nice unless it suits their interests.
Feeding, clothing, sheltering, and educating a child, and then setting him or her up for a decent start in life wasn't considered a "getting rid of" behavior until late in the 20th century. It was considered the absolute pinnacle of parenting.
Throughout most of human history, "getting rid of" behavior happened *before* the parent(s) made a sizable investment in the kid.
Unwanted babies were left to die of exposure throughout the Roman Republic and Empire, and were often strangled at birth elsewhere especially if the family already had too many mouths to feed. Sometimes an abandoned baby was picked up by speculators and raised/sold as a slave, but more often feral dogs got to them first. In times of famine, children were sometimes sold into slavery in order to feed the remaining family members. The children least able to contribute work to benefit the family were the first to be sold off. Young people who showed evidence of serious mental illness or developmental delay were generally relegated to "village idiot" status or alms-beggars in the streets, assuming they were not directed into prostitution or organized theft. Dumping the kid on the Church was sometimes an option, IF the dumped child was accompanied by a suitable financial gift. Children with normal or above-normal aptitude were sometimes trained as clerks or caregivers to the elderly. Less capable children were very likely to be used for menial or repetitive work, such as scrubbing floors or mucking out horse stalls. Defiant or hard to manage children, sadly, were more likely to be whipped or hit until they either complied or died.
Hysterectomies and vasectomies for everyone! SERIOUSLY!
Hysterectomies and vasectomies for everyone! SERIOUSLY!
PSA: you probably mean tubal ligitation and vasectomies for everyone. It doesn't rhyme as well; but a hysterectomy is a serious surgery with serious consequences that go beyond reproduction. Suggesting mass hysterectomies is akin to suggesting that all guys have their testicles cut off.
People prefer boy kids because they will continue the family name and bring in wealth through marriage while girl kids will take away wealth from the parental home. As a result the sex ratio in some parts of Asia is pathetic (700 girls for 1000 boys). This in turn leads to less exposure to women in daily life for guys leading to not knowing how to act in a normal relationship (or friendship) with a woman which sadly leads to more crime and violence against women.
This is a worrying trend and the future is not going to be pretty when the 1000 boys grow up and want to get married and don't have 1000 women to get married to.
The crime and violence towards women can also at least partially be attributed to little boys being treated like little emperors and being doted upon by parents and two sets of grandparents. Parents are usually working crazy hours (so they can afford to buy a house for the kid) so the kid is raised by grandparents, who often bring their uneducated backwards mentality regarding child rearing. When you grow up believing you are the center of the universe, and you are allowed to do whatever you like and treat adult caregivers however you want without consequences, you often end up treating others badly, including women whom you have been socialized to believe are "less than" men.
Three quarters of the time when their is domestic violence in a couple, the woman has abused the man. At least in the USA and Canada. Perhaps it is different where you leave. But in my context, I don't really get what you are meaning. If that was the case, we'd see the rate be a fraction of what it is.
The crime and violence towards women can also at least partially be attributed to little boys being treated like little emperors and being doted upon by parents and two sets of grandparents. Parents are usually working crazy hours (so they can afford to buy a house for the kid) so the kid is raised by grandparents, who often bring their uneducated backwards mentality regarding child rearing. When you grow up believing you are the center of the universe, and you are allowed to do whatever you like and treat adult caregivers however you want without consequences, you often end up treating others badly, including women whom you have been socialized to believe are "less than" men.
Three quarters of the time when their is domestic violence in a couple, the woman has abused the man. At least in the USA and Canada. Perhaps it is different where you leave. But in my context, I don't really get what you are meaning. If that was the case, we'd see the rate be a fraction of what it is.
Three quarters of the time when their is domestic violence in a couple, the woman has abused the man. At least in the USA and Canada. Perhaps it is different where you leave. But in my context, I don't really get what you are meaning. If that was the case, we'd see the rate be a fraction of what it is.
Apologies for derailing the thread a bit...was intrigued by your claim, so I looked up the Statistics Canada report on domestic violence, and I quote:
"females had more than double the risk of males of becoming a victim of police-reported family violence (407 victims per 100,000 population versus 180 victims per 100,000). This increased risk was primarily attributed to females’ higher representation as victims of spousal violence."
But I was actually referring to Asia in my post, because cutenila was talking about Asia. Hope that clears it up a bit.
Three quarters of the time when their is domestic violence in a couple, the woman has abused the man. At least in the USA and Canada. Perhaps it is different where you leave. But in my context, I don't really get what you are meaning. If that was the case, we'd see the rate be a fraction of what it is.
Apologies for derailing the thread a bit...was intrigued by your claim, so I looked up the Statistics Canada report on domestic violence, and I quote:
"females had more than double the risk of males of becoming a victim of police-reported family violence (407 victims per 100,000 population versus 180 victims per 100,000). This increased risk was primarily attributed to females’ higher representation as victims of spousal violence."
But I was actually referring to Asia in my post, because cutenila was talking about Asia. Hope that clears it up a bit.
Well, I just remembered this one. It isnt big and dramatic, but it shows how inheritences breed entitlement.
My friend is a huge consumer who blows through whatever money she has while still being responsible with all payments. She inherited about $300,000 when her mother died. Her brother got the same amount.
Not surprisingly, she blew through that inheritance along with another $150,000 she got when cashing out a piece of real,estate to buy business ventures. They went belly up.
So, $500,000 in the red later, she is age mid sixties and still working full time at a well paying job and she is still making mortgage payments because when you treat your home equity like an ATM, you dont pay off your house! Who knew!???
Anyway, she was moaning some time ago that her brother should give her some of the $300,000 that he received in the inheritance because, well, she needs it! She needs it to blow on stupid consumer crap! And doesnt he know that his children will be her heirs, anyway!??? He should just hand over some of that $300,000.
And I am thinking to myself, Lady, you wont HAVE anything to leave to heirs, I dont even know how you are going survive if you ever retire from your well paid job.
Well, I just remembered this one. It isnt big and dramatic, but it shows how inheritences breed entitlement.
My friend is a huge consumer who blows through whatever money she has while still being responsible with all payments. She inherited about $300,000 when her mother died. Her brother got the same amount.
Not surprisingly, she blew through that inheritance along with another $150,000 she got when cashing out a piece of real,estate to buy business ventures. They went belly up.
So, $500,000 in the red later, she is age mid sixties and still working full time at a well paying job and she is still making mortgage payments because when you treat your home equity like an ATM, you dont pay off your house! Who knew!???
Anyway, she was moaning some time ago that her brother should give her some of the $300,000 that he received in the inheritance because, well, she needs it! She needs it to blow on stupid consumer crap! And doesnt he know that his children will be her heirs, anyway!??? He should just hand over some of that $300,000.
And I am thinking to myself, Lady, you wont HAVE anything to leave to heirs, I dont even know how you are going survive if you ever retire from your well paid job.
100 year old commercial building in need of complete renovation and a business. And a vacation cabin. That is really chump change for these purchases. And thats the problem, she thought it was a lot of money. I dont think its much money. Hence, I know it would be easy to spend all of it. For her, such a big amont all in one place at one time must make it difficult to spend out until gone.Well, I just remembered this one. It isnt big and dramatic, but it shows how inheritences breed entitlement.
My friend is a huge consumer who blows through whatever money she has while still being responsible with all payments. She inherited about $300,000 when her mother died. Her brother got the same amount.
Not surprisingly, she blew through that inheritance along with another $150,000 she got when cashing out a piece of real,estate to buy business ventures. They went belly up.
So, $500,000 in the red later, she is age mid sixties and still working full time at a well paying job and she is still making mortgage payments because when you treat your home equity like an ATM, you dont pay off your house! Who knew!???
Anyway, she was moaning some time ago that her brother should give her some of the $300,000 that he received in the inheritance because, well, she needs it! She needs it to blow on stupid consumer crap! And doesnt he know that his children will be her heirs, anyway!??? He should just hand over some of that $300,000.
And I am thinking to myself, Lady, you wont HAVE anything to leave to heirs, I dont even know how you are going survive if you ever retire from your well paid job.
I read this and I think it's just uncanny. I can live on about 400$ /m. How does one even spend 450k? Did she buy formula 1 cars and mansions?
Yes, I did suggest that he probably sent his children to college with the money and it is probably gone.Well, I just remembered this one. It isnt big and dramatic, but it shows how inheritences breed entitlement.
My friend is a huge consumer who blows through whatever money she has while still being responsible with all payments. She inherited about $300,000 when her mother died. Her brother got the same amount.
Not surprisingly, she blew through that inheritance along with another $150,000 she got when cashing out a piece of real,estate to buy business ventures. They went belly up.
So, $500,000 in the red later, she is age mid sixties and still working full time at a well paying job and she is still making mortgage payments because when you treat your home equity like an ATM, you dont pay off your house! Who knew!???
Anyway, she was moaning some time ago that her brother should give her some of the $300,000 that he received in the inheritance because, well, she needs it! She needs it to blow on stupid consumer crap! And doesnt he know that his children will be her heirs, anyway!??? He should just hand over some of that $300,000.
And I am thinking to myself, Lady, you wont HAVE anything to leave to heirs, I dont even know how you are going survive if you ever retire from your well paid job.
I can't imagine the mental acrobatics she went through to come to the conclusion she "deserves" more than half.
Also, hasn't it occurred to her that her brother might have done the exact same thing with his inheritance?
The problem is rampant in some parts of the world mainly for girl kids. Because the parents want a boy baby but can't afford to feed all the girl kids that are born before the boy kid is possibly born, they end up killing the girl kids or leaving them as orphans or selling them. In some rural areas, girl kids survived if they were the oldest (so there is atleast one kid for the parents in case they don't have any more despite trying - also useful to take care of younger siblings because girls were trained in household chores) or if they were the last kid after a slew of boys. As people are getting more educated, this is going down but even now, dowry is a big issue and people try to avoid girl children as a result.And let's be clear: this is not just confined to history but is going on today on a big scale. Newborn girls in many parts of the world have much less chance of making it through childhood than boys, sometimes through neglect, sometimes through more specific action. Older girls are sold to people traffickers and forced to become prostitutes in first world countries. Child murder and child slavery are modern day evils, not just historical ones.
Hysterectomies and vasectomies for everyone! SERIOUSLY! Ought to be easier and encouraged to anyone that isn't dedicated to raising and loving their children. The world is plenty full. I witnessed another tired mother berating and impatient with her two little children last night. They were unhappy. She was unhappy.
We had kids but we never behaved like that!
People prefer boy kids because they will continue the family name and bring in wealth through marriage while girl kids will take away wealth from the parental home. As a result the sex ratio in some parts of Asia is pathetic (700 girls for 1000 boys). This in turn leads to less exposure to women in daily life for guys leading to not knowing how to act in a normal relationship (or friendship) with a woman which sadly leads to more crime and violence against women.
This is a worrying trend and the future is not going to be pretty when the 1000 boys grow up and want to get married and don't have 1000 women to get married to.
I guess I really was born on second, maybe third base. I always believed I hit at least a double with my hard work and smart choices. I should be glad that my parents actually cared about our education and worked their asses off to leave a third world country to come here and give us better opportunities.
The way my children behave sometimes, I can see how some parents would consider selling a child or two. Again I'm not saying I would actually do it but I am beginning to understand the thought process that goes into it. Lord help me when they become teenagers........ ugghhh. =(
Hysterectomies and vasectomies for everyone! SERIOUSLY!
PSA: you probably mean tubal ligitation and vasectomies for everyone. It doesn't rhyme as well; but a hysterectomy is a serious surgery with serious consequences that go beyond reproduction. Suggesting mass hysterectomies is akin to suggesting that all guys have their testicles cut off.
My grandmother died last week at the age of 91, and it appears there will be inheritance drama aplenty. My grandmother died with a small amount of money in the bank and a paid off house in a trust for her four living children. The challenge is that my worthless alcoholic uncle (WAU) is living in the house and has announced he has no intention of moving out until he receives his share of the estate. Several years ago he convinced my grandmother, who was unhappy and not adjusting well to her move into an assisted living facility that she should move back home and he would move in with her. This was, not coincidentally, the same time that my other uncle informed him that he was getting out of the rental property business and would therefore be selling the house WAU had been living in rent free for the previous few years. As everyone in the family except my dear grandmother predicted, having WAU move in with my mildly demented grandmother proved to be a terrible situation. While WAU was never physically abusive, his proclivity for getting drunk and belligerent upset my grandmother greatly, and after she made numerous 911 calls adult protective services intervened. She and her cat moved into a different assisted living facility where she remained until her mental capacity deteriorated so severely she had to move to a nursing home with a specialized dementia ward.
WAU is outraged that my mother, the executrix of my grandmother's estate, gets to distribute my grandmother's remaining possessions and has announced that he will take anything he wants. He will soon receive certified letters formally notifying him that my mother is the executrix and he is not to remove, sell, or otherwise dispose of any of my late grandmother's possessions and that he is an at will tenant and is to move out by a specified date. I seriously doubt he will leave the house without police involvement. It sucks so badly that my mom just lost her mother and now must also deal with this.
My grandmother died last week at the age of 91, and it appears there will be inheritance drama aplenty. My grandmother died with a small amount of money in the bank and a paid off house in a trust for her four living children. The challenge is that my worthless alcoholic uncle (WAU) is living in the house and has announced he has no intention of moving out until he receives his share of the estate. Several years ago he convinced my grandmother, who was unhappy and not adjusting well to her move into an assisted living facility that she should move back home and he would move in with her. This was, not coincidentally, the same time that my other uncle informed him that he was getting out of the rental property business and would therefore be selling the house WAU had been living in rent free for the previous few years. As everyone in the family except my dear grandmother predicted, having WAU move in with my mildly demented grandmother proved to be a terrible situation. While WAU was never physically abusive, his proclivity for getting drunk and belligerent upset my grandmother greatly, and after she made numerous 911 calls adult protective services intervened. She and her cat moved into a different assisted living facility where she remained until her mental capacity deteriorated so severely she had to move to a nursing home with a specialized dementia ward.
WAU is outraged that my mother, the executrix of my grandmother's estate, gets to distribute my grandmother's remaining possessions and has announced that he will take anything he wants. He will soon receive certified letters formally notifying him that my mother is the executrix and he is not to remove, sell, or otherwise dispose of any of my late grandmother's possessions and that he is an at will tenant and is to move out by a specified date. I seriously doubt he will leave the house without police involvement. It sucks so badly that my mom just lost her mother and now must also deal with this.
*complete shitshow*
*complete shitshow*
Just....wow......
Looking for a silver lining, if you ever felt like you missed out on something growing up without a relationship with your father, I guess you now know that all you were missing was more shit like this.
People just don't realize, its not your money, it never was your money, your are freeken lucky if it is not all donated to some charity. And even luckier if your parents live well & long enough to spend it all.YES.
My cousin actually got what I imagine to be a small amount at my Grandma's funeral. I saw my uncle give something to her and her alone. But her father passed away when she was a teen and as our uncle (the executor) gave her the envelope with a check he said "Grandma never forgot about you." She has had a pretty rough life. We don't live close and don't know each other well. She looked quite well at the funeral and is doing OK but I know not as well as me. I feel somewhat guilty for having a brief snarky moment of wondering "Why is she getting something?". But would I trade a few thousand dollars for my father's life? Nope! So I have no problem with her being the only grandchild to get any inheritance from Grandma.
My cousin actually got what I imagine to be a small amount at my Grandma's funeral. I saw my uncle give something to her and her alone. But her father passed away when she was a teen and as our uncle (the executor) gave her the envelope with a check he said "Grandma never forgot about you." She has had a pretty rough life. We don't live close and don't know each other well. She looked quite well at the funeral and is doing OK but I know not as well as me. I feel somewhat guilty for having a brief snarky moment of wondering "Why is she getting something?". But would I trade a few thousand dollars for my father's life? Nope! So I have no problem with her being the only grandchild to get any inheritance from Grandma.
Assuming that her father was your grandmother's son, and she's the only child, it's actually pretty standard for her to get her fathers share.
I may have shared this earlier (so forgive me), but I had a great-grandma who was predeceased by both a daughter and a granddaughter. When she passed, each living child got 1/3, while the deceased daughter's portion was split in four. 1/4 of the 1/3 went to each living child of that daughter, and the deceased granddaughter's portion was split between her two kids.
While that meant that my cousins got money when I didn't, and that my mom got money when her cousins didn't, it seems way more fair than excluding the deceased from the inheritance altogether. Like, should my great-aunt and great-uncle get more because their sister died young, leaving four children? Should my mother get more because her sister died young leaving two children?
Let. It. Go. There's no amount of money on this earth that could convince me to deal with relatives who would rather be jerking off the elephant while standing on their dicks.
Indeed, a 5-figure surprise sounds a lot nicer than a 5-finger surprise.
That image will be in my head for a while.Let. It. Go. There's no amount of money on this earth that could convince me to deal with relatives who would rather be jerking off the elephant while standing on their dicks.
You win my scythe for a day, for the most amazing metaphor that I can't help trying to visualize. Complete with a "Frozen" reference, no less.
More like BOHICA.Indeed, a 5-figure surprise sounds a lot nicer than a 5-finger surprise.
A 5 finger surprise gives a whole new meaning to UFIA.
*complete shitshow*
Just....wow......
Looking for a silver lining, if you ever felt like you missed out on something growing up without a relationship with your father, I guess you now know that all you were missing was more shit like this.
You don't know the half of it... *chuckles*... that divorce was traumatic, but clearly still one of the best things to ever happen to me. The stepdad I got in high school ended up sucking (and leaving) too, but at least he taught me the importance of confidence... been making up for lost time ever since. I could list all kinds of additional wretched shit on the parental front, but what matters is that I made it through. Even still have one parent I really like*! :D
*and who is guaranteed to die penniless so I'll never have to argue over money with my sisters...
Zephyr,Close... 13. And such an emo drama queen, too. I was a mess.
Reading your posts it seems the original divorce + prison escapade went down when you were maybe 14. Tough row to hoe, glad you came out with a strong attitude and self reliance. Good for you.
Btw, I always like seeing your posts because your sig line makes me chuckle. Cheers.I'm glad it amuses you... it's the reality here. A cog needs to keep its shape to function. Our work demands a slippery substance they can apply on demand to prevent vital components (uptight senior leaders, *cough*) from rubbing each other the wrong way. We keep the squeaky wheels (and cogs) quiet so things run smoothly. xD
Earlier this year I shared details about my situation. A basic detail... I am in Ontario, Canada.Walk away from it and focus your time and energy on matters that are in your own hands and of which the impact on your finance/well being is certain.
I will recap here and add a few more points. I am a bit desperate about coming to a decision without wasting another penny on unhelpful advice from lawyers.
1. July 2016 I found out that my former husband (divorced May 2014, property settlement finalized October 2014) died when our insurance company contacted me to release $40K on a $300K policy. (Policy started a month before our beautiful daugher was born.) I eventually found out that he died horribly (alcoholic's death, bleeding in the brain, etc.) in May 2016... which explains why he would not respond to my attempts to contact him. (The children 12 and 14 years old, last saw their father in early April.)
2. My EX's family refuses to respond to my enquiries about the location of his remains, if there was a will, etc.
3. I post on this forum and also go to the courthouse looking for a will... for a record of someone applying to execute the will, etc. and I consult 3 different lawyers.
4. Finally I settle on a lawyer who seems reasonable, competent, etc. A letter is sent out and my EX's brother finally coughs up a will, which is awful. I see that my EX wrote the will a few months before we reached a settlement with the help of his slimey lawyer, who evidently asked his wife to witness my EX's will signing. (Why not? She benefitted financially too from my EX's crazy, bitter decision-making.)
It tuns out my EX basically left everything to his brother (a very well off professional married to another well off professional with only one child, fully grown and with a computer science degree from a top notch school)... and 10% to each of his 2 children, if and only if they have a DNA test first to prove that they are his children. However, it is 10% of nothing b/c my former BIL claims that my EX was destitute. Yet, I am 99.99% certain that he was named as the other beneficiary of the life insurance policy and a direct beneficiary on all other accounts with significant funds.
5. My lawyer asks for my former BIL (through his lawyer) to give details about the life insurance policy and the registered retirement savings accounts my EX has (worth about $300K in late 2014). He refuses and threatens me with legal costs if I proceed with a claim on behalf of my children for dependant's relief.
6. Today my lawyer sends me an email hinting that I should not proceed because I (who will not benefit in any direct way from the claim) risk incurring significant legal costs. (Unfortunately at 54, with the current labour market not good even if one has a grad degree... I don't have much of a financial future. I currently work on contract at $15 (CDN) per hour.)
So do I let the "bad guys" win? Incidentally, the former BIL stopped sending birthday cards to my children, the year I left his brother. My EX's family somehow sees me as an evil woman who abandoned her poor husband in times of trouble... and somehow my children are tainted too.
Incidentally, my EX probably blew through $100 to $150K, as he fought to keep me from getting full custody and then any of the assets (acquired during our marriage). I myself had $55K approx. in legal costs... that were not directly connected to prepping or making a court appearances. (I kind of despise family lawyers. They profit from so much misery. If I hadn't fought for what I was legally entitle too, I'd have had next to nothing instead of approx. $150K.)
My children live in Canada... so they are not starving. And there are programs to borrow money to go to college. However....I am still tempted to risk paying my former BIL's fat cat lawyer... b/c it is so wrong and really, there MUST have been some significant assets. But I don't have any proof.
Also, my kids have no one else, really... no aunts, uncles, grandparents, no cousins... just me. One family friend, but now dead for another reason.
I loved my husband but I also feared him. One of my biggest regrets is that he died not knowing how sad I was about having to leave him, for my sake and for our children's sake.
Any advice? I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum. But it's where I began, reaching out for help.
Have you applied for the survivors benefit for your children? If you don't have RESPs for them and can live without the money, you could put the survivor's benefit in an RESP for them. The government top ups would go a long way even in this short period of time. (I am not sure if there are special rules against starting late at 12 and 14).
Your ex's family are being a bit of douches and throwing a red herring. As far as I am aware, it is irrelevant, both morally and legally, whether your children were genetically his or not. (For comparison, if they were adopted they'd have the same rights as biological children.) I bring this up because it frustrates me when people throw shade for no reason.
Florida man buried his mother in their backyard to collect her $35,345 retirement funds
Earlier this year I shared details about my situation. A basic detail... I am in Ontario, Canada.
I will recap here and add a few more points. I am a bit desperate about coming to a decision without wasting another penny on unhelpful advice from lawyers.
1. July 2016 I found out that my former husband (divorced May 2014, property settlement finalized October 2014) died when our insurance company contacted me to release $40K on a $300K policy. (Policy started a month before our beautiful daugher was born.) I eventually found out that he died horribly (alcoholic's death, bleeding in the brain, etc.) in May 2016... which explains why he would not respond to my attempts to contact him. (The children 12 and 14 years old, last saw their father in early April.)
2. My EX's family refuses to respond to my enquiries about the location of his remains, if there was a will, etc.
3. I post on this forum and also go to the courthouse looking for a will... for a record of someone applying to execute the will, etc. and I consult 3 different lawyers.
4. Finally I settle on a lawyer who seems reasonable, competent, etc. A letter is sent out and my EX's brother finally coughs up a will, which is awful. I see that my EX wrote the will a few months before we reached a settlement with the help of his slimey lawyer, who evidently asked his wife to witness my EX's will signing. (Why not? She benefitted financially too from my EX's crazy, bitter decision-making.)
It tuns out my EX basically left everything to his brother (a very well off professional married to another well off professional with only one child, fully grown and with a computer science degree from a top notch school)... and 10% to each of his 2 children, if and only if they have a DNA test first to prove that they are his children. However, it is 10% of nothing b/c my former BIL claims that my EX was destitute. Yet, I am 99.99% certain that he was named as the other beneficiary of the life insurance policy and a direct beneficiary on all other accounts with significant funds.
5. My lawyer asks for my former BIL (through his lawyer) to give details about the life insurance policy and the registered retirement savings accounts my EX has (worth about $300K in late 2014). He refuses and threatens me with legal costs if I proceed with a claim on behalf of my children for dependant's relief.
6. Today my lawyer sends me an email hinting that I should not proceed because I (who will not benefit in any direct way from the claim) risk incurring significant legal costs. (Unfortunately at 54, with the current labour market not good even if one has a grad degree... I don't have much of a financial future. I currently work on contract at $15 (CDN) per hour.)
So do I let the "bad guys" win? Incidentally, the former BIL stopped sending birthday cards to my children, the year I left his brother. My EX's family somehow sees me as an evil woman who abandoned her poor husband in times of trouble... and somehow my children are tainted too.
Incidentally, my EX probably blew through $100 to $150K, as he fought to keep me from getting full custody and then any of the assets (acquired during our marriage). I myself had $55K approx. in legal costs... that were not directly connected to prepping or making a court appearances. (I kind of despise family lawyers. They profit from so much misery. If I hadn't fought for what I was legally entitle too, I'd have had next to nothing instead of approx. $150K.)
My children live in Canada... so they are not starving. And there are programs to borrow money to go to college. However....I am still tempted to risk paying my former BIL's fat cat lawyer... b/c it is so wrong and really, there MUST have been some significant assets. But I don't have any proof.
Also, my kids have no one else, really... no aunts, uncles, grandparents, no cousins... just me. One family friend, but now dead for another reason.
I loved my husband but I also feared him. One of my biggest regrets is that he died not knowing how sad I was about having to leave him, for my sake and for our children's sake.
Any advice? I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum. But it's where I began, reaching out for help.
Are there any accounts that might still list you as beneficiary? Beneficiary designation trumps the will. A financial institution will not pay out anything to the BIL if you are listed as beneficiary.
Sometimes after a divorce people forget to change beneficiaries and the money ends up going to an ex. Sometimes even there is a new spouse -- and the new spouse is out of luck.
I'm not positive about this but I believe you can approach financial institutions that you suspect might list you or your kids as beneficiaries on his accounts and ask. Probably best to have a copy of the death certificate. I believe the executor doesn't even have to know.
This thread has made me very sure that if anyone ever leaves me anything other then money jointly, if we can't amicably work out what to do with it within six months, I will simply relinquish all claim to it. Not worth it.We have an inheritance story brewing (old grand dad not ready to split property between kids (that was bequeathed to them by their grand parents), one of the kids (! In their late 60s) trying to cheat the other kid out of their share and younger generation from both sides trying to get the best part of the pie). The problem is compounded by the fact that the property in question is worth millions and some of the younger generation (kid trying to cheat and their progeny) are financially dependent on the cash flow from the property. And the kid being cheated and their progeny don't want to fight too hard but want the others to settle fairly.
so many stories of horrible Scion squandering their inheritances
Now I've got an image of a car blowing through a wall of cash like the Kool-aid man stuck in my head.so many stories of horrible Scion squandering their inheritances
Anyone else picturing a boxy Toyota blowing through a trust fund?
Now I've got an image of a car blowing through a wall of cash like the Kool-aid man stuck in my head.so many stories of horrible Scion squandering their inheritances
Anyone else picturing a boxy Toyota blowing through a trust fund?
Now I've got an image of a car blowing through a wall of cash like the Kool-aid man stuck in my head.
Now I've got an image of a car blowing through a wall of cash like the Kool-aid man stuck in my head.
Story of my car enthusiast life.
I happen to drive an orange Scion, dubbed "the Toaster" by one of my teammates, which I could actually dress up as the Kool-Aid man since it's about the right color.Now I've got an image of a car blowing through a wall of cash like the Kool-aid man stuck in my head.Story of my car enthusiast life.
My first reaction was that part of the appeal of FIRE is having achieved it yourself.Short of "not stealing it", etc, I don't think I will derive any particular extra pleasure from the means of FIRE. DW did inherit five figures unexpectedly a couple of years ago, and we invested the shit out of it, probably pushing us up a couple of years. I don't think it takes anything away from the fun we're about to have.
But as I started to type this comment, it occurred to me that there are so many stories of horrible Scion squandering their inheritances, that I cannot judge harshly someone who used an inheritance to create a modest lifestyle freed from the tyrrannies of relentless employment.
My first reaction was that part of the appeal of FIRE is having achieved it yourself.Short of "not stealing it", etc, I don't think I will derive any particular extra pleasure from the means of FIRE. DW did inherit five figures unexpectedly a couple of years ago, and we invested the shit out of it, probably pushing us up a couple of years. I don't think it takes anything away from the fun we're about to have.
But as I started to type this comment, it occurred to me that there are so many stories of horrible Scion squandering their inheritances, that I cannot judge harshly someone who used an inheritance to create a modest lifestyle freed from the tyrrannies of relentless employment.
Short of "not stealing it", etc, I don't think I will derive any particular extra pleasure from the means of FIRE. DW did inherit five figures unexpectedly a couple of years ago, and we invested the shit out of it, probably pushing us up a couple of years. I don't think it takes anything away from the fun we're about to have.
Explaining your FIRE status to a normal person is challenging. I see how the question of whether you inherited your stash would be part of that, and explaining that, yes, you did, might actually seem more normal than, "Actually, I was really focused for 16 years and saved 48% of every dollar I touched"
Never count on inheritances. We were assured we'd "be taken care of" someday. Due to family dynamics I feel that is uncertain. And "taken care of" was never even close to defined.
Never count on inheritances. We were assured we'd "be taken care of" someday. Due to family dynamics I feel that is uncertain. And "taken care of" was never even close to defined.
This is basically the first chapter of Pride & Prejudice.
Likewise in the second half of The House of Mirth, and the heroine really landed on her face as a result.Never count on inheritances. We were assured we'd "be taken care of" someday. Due to family dynamics I feel that is uncertain. And "taken care of" was never even close to defined.This is basically the first chapter of Pride & Prejudice.
I've seen many divorce cases in which the husband assured his wife that they didn't need to be saving for retirement because they would inherit some family resources. Then they got divorced while MIL was still alive, and wife had no claim to MIL's resources or estate, and there was nothing saved.
I've seen many divorce cases in which the husband assured his wife that they didn't need to be saving for retirement because they would inherit some family resources. Then they got divorced while MIL was still alive, and wife had no claim to MIL's resources or estate, and there was nothing saved.
Wow, that is brutal. Do you know these couples professionally or personally? I can't get over how many people rely on an inheritance, when it isn't their money and you never know how much care someone will need or how the older relatives choose to spend their money.
I've seen many divorce cases in which the husband assured his wife that they didn't need to be saving for retirement because they would inherit some family resources. Then they got divorced while MIL was still alive, and wife had no claim to MIL's resources or estate, and there was nothing saved.
Gillian Anderson is in a great film production of that book.Never count on inheritances. We were assured we'd "be taken care of" someday. Due to family dynamics I feel that is uncertain. And "taken care of" was never even close to defined.
This is basically the first chapter of Pride & Prejudice.
Likewise in the second half of The House of Mirth, and the heroine really landed on her face as a result.
to Playing with fire: I served as an expert witness in these cases.
Never count on inheritances. We were assured we'd "be taken care of" someday. Due to family dynamics I feel that is uncertain. And "taken care of" was never even close to defined.
Our plans are independent of any promises made by anyone else.
Never count on inheritances. We were assured we'd "be taken care of" someday. Due to family dynamics I feel that is uncertain. And "taken care of" was never even close to defined.
Our plans are independent of any promises made by anyone else.
I don't really count on it (in the sense that when we look at our numbers and plans, we don't automatically add in dollar amount for a future inheritance), but it's very much in the back of my mind as an additional safety factor. And perhaps it makes me feel a bit better about pulling the trigger with a slightly tighter annual withdraw amount. Knowing the details I do about my parents, I don't actually think I'd be misguided if I did somewhat count on it. They have a positive cash flow, even in their 70s. (2 generous pensions, plus social security, plus a consulting gig dad continues to do because he finds it rewarding, and a few other things). They have great healthcare, and are fairly modest spenders. It's hard to imagine a scenario where they'd blow through the roughly 2mm they are hoping to leave to my sibling and me. And our family dynamics are incredibly healthy and stable, so someone getting disowned is so far-fetched that it's laughable. And sibling and I have both been clearly told that we stand to inherit, and that $1mm per child figure was thrown out (though it was a goal at the time, and they weren't quite there yet as of several years ago when we we last discussed actual amounts). Maybe I'd only get $6-700k instead of $1mm. But nothing or very little? I don't see any realistic scenario where that would happen.
Again, I don't count on it, and I fully recognize their right to do whatever the heck they want with their money. I truly wish they'd spend more. It makes me crazy to be out with mom and have her comment on how pretty a sweater is, but then refuse to buy it. (And we are talking $50 sweaters, not $500.) And if they wanted to leave it all to cancer research of the local library or whatever, great. But they very much *want* to leave us that money, and I don't see that suddenly changing. So while we don't really count on it, I think that as long as one is looking honestly at the situation and the people and factors involved, and has been told what is in the will (with specifics), I don't think it's foolhardy to assume that what one is told will happen will actually happen. And even to plan accordingly.
By the time the dust settles, the family that was once distant is now fractured, family members and their spouses have lied to each other, had screaming matches, etc etc. Four lawyers' fees taken out of the estate have reduced it down to a fraction of its meagre amount and the Stradivarius is finally retrieved and valued at... less than a grand.
King Solomon was right: the violin should have been cut into five pieces. Would have saved everyone tens of thousands of dollars.
Ugh. I noped my way out of that conversation and told her I'm not involved in any financial dealings between her and our parents.
But I'm a little stunned that given their health issues (major surgeries this year), her thought is "Shit, the parent bank might not be around that much longer, how can I get my hands on as much as possible while it's still in their name?" and that she would think that asking to borrow potentially most of their savings when they are coming up on end of life care needs is in any way appropriate.
This sounds scary. Do you think your parents would be strong armed into favouring her financially?They've always tried to me incredibly equal in how they treat my sister and me. At first when she would call and say she needed a couple thousand dollars, they would give it to her but mail me an unsolicited check for the same amount.
This sounds scary. Do you think your parents would be strong armed into favouring her financially?They've always tried to me incredibly equal in how they treat my sister and me. At first when she would call and say she needed a couple thousand dollars, they would give it to her but mail me an unsolicited check for the same amount.
Then it was clear she was calling them to say she was about to be foreclosed on, homeless, etc, which was true - but then spending thousands on vet bills for pets, and still acquiring/hoarding more pets instead of understanding she can't afford them. I think at that point they switched to "loans" instead of gifts, but I don't think she's ever paid them back.
They have to weigh being angry about her choices, understanding they are enabling her (which they get), vs. not wanting their kid to be destitute. It's scary in part because my mother's got the beginnings of cognitive impairment, so it's really on my dad's shoulders to make sure they are protecting their assets so if he passes away first, there's savings to cover memory care for my mom if she needs it. And if my mom is the sole survivor and gets worse, it would be very easy to scam her.
This sounds scary. Do you think your parents would be strong armed into favouring her financially?They've always tried to me incredibly equal in how they treat my sister and me. At first when she would call and say she needed a couple thousand dollars, they would give it to her but mail me an unsolicited check for the same amount.
Then it was clear she was calling them to say she was about to be foreclosed on, homeless, etc, which was true - but then spending thousands on vet bills for pets, and still acquiring/hoarding more pets instead of understanding she can't afford them. I think at that point they switched to "loans" instead of gifts, but I don't think she's ever paid them back.
They have to weigh being angry about her choices, understanding they are enabling her (which they get), vs. not wanting their kid to be destitute. It's scary in part because my mother's got the beginnings of cognitive impairment, so it's really on my dad's shoulders to make sure they are protecting their assets so if he passes away first, there's savings to cover memory care for my mom if she needs it. And if my mom is the sole survivor and gets worse, it would be very easy to scam her.
My sister is almost 60. Both of my parents died recently and she's suddenly "on her own" for the first time in her life. I'm not expecting success.If you don't mind sharing a bit more, what do you see happening with her? Is she going to be able to downsize and cut expenses? Will you be guilted into rescuing her if she ends up homeless?
This sounds scary. Do you think your parents would be strong armed into favouring her financially?They've always tried to me incredibly equal in how they treat my sister and me. At first when she would call and say she needed a couple thousand dollars, they would give it to her but mail me an unsolicited check for the same amount.
Then it was clear she was calling them to say she was about to be foreclosed on, homeless, etc, which was true - but then spending thousands on vet bills for pets, and still acquiring/hoarding more pets instead of understanding she can't afford them. I think at that point they switched to "loans" instead of gifts, but I don't think she's ever paid them back.
They have to weigh being angry about her choices, understanding they are enabling her (which they get), vs. not wanting their kid to be destitute. It's scary in part because my mother's got the beginnings of cognitive impairment, so it's really on my dad's shoulders to make sure they are protecting their assets so if he passes away first, there's savings to cover memory care for my mom if she needs it. And if my mom is the sole survivor and gets worse, it would be very easy to scam her.
[/quote
The thing is, if one spouse is dead, then the rest of it is easier sailing. When funds run out she is cared for by the taxpayers.
Ive always been more concerned about two spouses ina a household and one needs lots of care.
My sister is almost 60. Both of my parents died recently and she's suddenly "on her own" for the first time in her life. I'm not expecting success.If you don't mind sharing a bit more, what do you see happening with her? Is she going to be able to downsize and cut expenses? Will you be guilted into rescuing her if she ends up homeless?
These are long-term side-concerns I have with my sister.
I've seen many divorce cases in which the husband assured his wife that they didn't need to be saving for retirement because they would inherit some family resources. Then they got divorced while MIL was still alive, and wife had no claim to MIL's resources or estate, and there was nothing saved.Ouchie...this actually happened to my husband in his first marriage. The second time around, he married up ;-)
By the time the dust settles, the family that was once distant is now fractured, family members and their spouses have lied to each other, had screaming matches, etc etc. Four lawyers' fees taken out of the estate have reduced it down to a fraction of its meagre amount and the Stradivarius is finally retrieved and valued at... less than a grand.
This is so sad.
Indeed, my MIL was trying to attribute our success to some family money that my wife inherited before we were married. She can be forgiven for not knowing what's in our 401-k statements.
Update: the fight is starting to get intense and 60+ years of relationships are being destroyed. The older sibling (who was the reason for all these fights) now claims her dad never gave her anything despite him bankrolling her lifestyle (and her entire family, including kids and their families) for around 50 years. Cousins that grew up together as one family are so distrustful of each other now and are trying to get others (tenants of the buildings in question) to side with them so they can take over by force (since justice by law will take years to settle) if necessary.This thread has made me very sure that if anyone ever leaves me anything other then money jointly, if we can't amicably work out what to do with it within six months, I will simply relinquish all claim to it. Not worth it.We have an inheritance story brewing (old grand dad not ready to split property between kids (that was bequeathed to them by their grand parents), one of the kids (! In their late 60s) trying to cheat the other kid out of their share and younger generation from both sides trying to get the best part of the pie). The problem is compounded by the fact that the property in question is worth millions and some of the younger generation (kid trying to cheat and their progeny) are financially dependent on the cash flow from the property. And the kid being cheated and their progeny don't want to fight too hard but want the others to settle fairly.
I've got popcorn popping!!
Shelivesthedream, exactly my sentiments! But in the above story, it's harder to let go because of the value of the property (think a set of real estate and profitable buildings in Manhattan). Thankfully it's not my direct problem (will help my kids though) but also makes it harder because it brings up the question should I fight for my kids since they are < 3 years old and would feel later on that mom should've fought for what was given to us. Makes the decision to let go harder when it's not your own stake.
Our FIRE plans are independent of this shitstorm since we firmly believe our FIRE shouldn't include any inheritance.
By the time the dust settles, the family that was once distant is now fractured, family members and their spouses have lied to each other, had screaming matches, etc etc. Four lawyers' fees taken out of the estate have reduced it down to a fraction of its meagre amount and the Stradivarius is finally retrieved and valued at... less than a grand.
Turns out it was a fake. Either Grandpa Al had been swindled back in his 20s or he had bought the thing more recently and just spun a very convincing tall tale without realising how much strife it would cause.
Label's on instruments manufactured today still will often say "Stradivarius" somewhere on them. But it indicates using a Stradivarius pattern, which if the label is read entirely is clear. Back when I worked at a music store, probably every 6 months someone would come in with a violin all excited. "Is this really a Stradivarius violin!? We found it in Grandma's attic!" "No - see the label says it was made in 1954. <explanation of why everyone uses Strad patterns> Might still be a nice violin though, would you like our shop to take a look at at?"By the time the dust settles, the family that was once distant is now fractured, family members and their spouses have lied to each other, had screaming matches, etc etc. Four lawyers' fees taken out of the estate have reduced it down to a fraction of its meagre amount and the Stradivarius is finally retrieved and valued at... less than a grand.
Turns out it was a fake. Either Grandpa Al had been swindled back in his 20s or he had bought the thing more recently and just spun a very convincing tall tale without realising how much strife it would cause.
Oh, I actually know a little bit about fake Stradivarius's
Antonio Stradivarius was very famous in his own lifetime, and was charging a pretty penny for his violins. So, some enterprising people in other countries (Germany, iirc?) would manufacture dodgy knockoff Stradivarius violins and sell 'em. So! The violin may very well have been from the time of Stradivarius, which means it's still a pretty damn old violin... Just that some enterprising fellow a few hundred years ago slapped a Stradivarius label on it to make money.
Indeed, my MIL was trying to attribute our success to some family money that my wife inherited before we were married. She can be forgiven for not knowing what's in our 401-k statements.Keep it that way. ;)
A very minor, light-hearted contribution.
Home for Christmas, Mum asked me to order her a copy of a book I knew she already owned.
Turns out she had loaned it to her father, who loaned it to his neighbour, who went into aged care and then ... died.
My dad (jokingly) suggested she make a claim against the estate, but Mum has sort of resigned herself to not getting the book back.
A very minor, light-hearted contribution.Hmmm, was it by any chance a copy of "Being Mortal" by Atul Gawande?
Home for Christmas, Mum asked me to order her a copy of a book I knew she already owned.
Turns out she had loaned it to her father, who loaned it to his neighbour, who went into aged care and then ... died.
My dad (jokingly) suggested she make a claim against the estate, but Mum has sort of resigned herself to not getting the book back.
I had a moment of wondering if I should tell my MIL how much I love [the potato ricer] and that I am
grateful for it. Then I remembered my SIL took the guy's car, heh. No matter, I'm still really excited to
have easy mashed potatoes with no effort.
Since we're opening up to anti-drama:
My great-aunt was a... rather difficult person in life. Four husbands, I believe, at a time when nobody outside of Hollywood would consider that. Got in trouble at her retirement home for pulling a pistol on her boyfriend (he had apparently criticized her cooking).
Her only heirs were my grandfather and his brother. Her will left everything to one of them. In her apartment was found another will that left everything to the other. Both my grandfather and his brother are lawyers... and they split everything amicably down the middle.
My great-aunt was a... rather difficult person in life. Four husbands, I believe, at a time when nobody outside of Hollywood would consider that. Got in trouble at her retirement home for pulling a pistol on her boyfriend (he had apparently criticized her cooking).
Since we're opening up to anti-drama:
My great-aunt was a... rather difficult person in life. Four husbands, I believe, at a time when nobody outside of Hollywood would consider that. Got in trouble at her retirement home for pulling a pistol on her boyfriend (he had apparently criticized her cooking).
Her only heirs were my grandfather and his brother. Her will left everything to one of them. In her apartment was found another will that left everything to the other. Both my grandfather and his brother are lawyers... and they split everything amicably down the middle.
that is some NEXT LEVEL petty stuff
Sister? What sister?Since we're opening up to anti-drama:
My great-aunt was a... rather difficult person in life. Four husbands, I believe, at a time when nobody outside of Hollywood would consider that. Got in trouble at her retirement home for pulling a pistol on her boyfriend (he had apparently criticized her cooking).
Her only heirs were my grandfather and his brother. Her will left everything to one of them. In her apartment was found another will that left everything to the other. Both my grandfather and his brother are lawyers... and they split everything amicably down the middle.
that is some NEXT LEVEL petty stuff
SUCH POINTS to the brothers, though. They probably knew first-hand exactly how much of a pain it was going to be to contest the other will, and perfectly ruined the sister's attempt to cause a rift.
The sister who died and left two conflicting wills :)Sister? What sister?that is some NEXT LEVEL petty stuff
SUCH POINTS to the brothers, though. They probably knew first-hand exactly how much of a pain it was going to be to contest the other will, and perfectly ruined the sister's attempt to cause a rift.
<<Head in hands, moaning: Oh, I can't keep up.>> Duh: Their sister. Thank you.The sister who died and left two conflicting wills :)Sister? What sister?that is some NEXT LEVEL petty stuff
SUCH POINTS to the brothers, though. They probably knew first-hand exactly how much of a pain it was going to be to contest the other will, and perfectly ruined the sister's attempt to cause a rift.
SUCH POINTS to the brothers, though. They probably knew first-hand exactly how much of a pain it was going to be to contest the other will, and perfectly ruined the sister's attempt to cause a rift.It's equally likely that the aunt was starting to have some sort of cognitive decline and was confused about the two of them in some way. My mom's starting to get to that point, for example complaining to my sister recently about how she always thought I was so awful doing a particular thing. Except the thing she didn't like about me was actually something my sister's been doing; not me! Luckily my sister and I have a sense of humor about it, but I can see how false memories could leave someone confusing two relatives, or forgetting they'd already made a will.
Indeed. My great-aunt, who was supported financially by my parents and my mother in particular for many years, left everything to a niece who physically resembled her but who had not helped at all during her illness and last decline. It was extremely ironic to see assets provided by my parents given to a relative that despised them.SUCH POINTS to the brothers, though. They probably knew first-hand exactly how much of a pain it was going to be to contest the other will, and perfectly ruined the sister's attempt to cause a rift.It's equally likely that the aunt was starting to have some sort of cognitive decline and was confused about the two of them in some way. My mom's starting to get to that point, for example complaining to my sister recently about how she always thought I was so awful doing a particular thing. Except the thing she didn't like about me was actually something my sister's been doing; not me! Luckily my sister and I have a sense of humor about it, but I can see how false memories could leave someone confusing two relatives, or forgetting they'd already made a will.
It's equally likely that the aunt was starting to have some sort of cognitive decline and was confused about the two of them in some way.
Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.
Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.
To an extent this was a thing with my grandmother's house as well. Things were specifically earmarked by her for particular people, and when she died for the most part they went there, except there weren't notes and my aunt got carried away and gave some things to the wrong people.
But if it is just people claiming things, rather than the owner assigning them, its a bit distasteful.
My mom had some of my grandmother's clothse. I liked one particular long dress with a cape trimmed in fur. My fur feelings are mixed & I would not buy fur today but this was a vintage, classy piece.
Sadly, I found out it got donated when my mom was decluttering. :(
We got a random call from someone who had bought a photo album from a charity shop and found all our family photos in it. They'd tracked us down to give them back. It was really good of them. These covered generations and most of them were before photography went digital so they were a unique collection.
My unsentimental family had tossed them all out while decluttering.
We got a random call from someone who had bought a photo album from a charity shop and found all our family photos in it. They'd tracked us down to give them back. It was really good of them. These covered generations and most of them were before photography went digital so they were a unique collection.
My unsentimental family had tossed them all out while decluttering.
We got a random call from someone who had bought a photo album from a charity shop and found all our family photos in it. They'd tracked us down to give them back. It was really good of them. These covered generations and most of them were before photography went digital so they were a unique collection.
My unsentimental family had tossed them all out while decluttering.
An old work friend of mine went to his father's house to visit -- when he got there, his dad was decluttering the downstairs living space and had tossed his wedding portrait in the garbage.
"Dad, you can't throw out your wedding picture. That's been over the fireplace forever."
"Eh, fuck it. She's dead."
I thought I was unsentimental, but that was a whole new level.
I can totally see my husband do it. He doesn't like any of our wedding pics. If anything, he'd hang on to the engagement pics and candid shots of us since those are his favorites.We got a random call from someone who had bought a photo album from a charity shop and found all our family photos in it. They'd tracked us down to give them back. It was really good of them. These covered generations and most of them were before photography went digital so they were a unique collection.
My unsentimental family had tossed them all out while decluttering.
An old work friend of mine went to his father's house to visit -- when he got there, his dad was decluttering the downstairs living space and had tossed his wedding portrait in the garbage.
"Dad, you can't throw out your wedding picture. That's been over the fireplace forever."
"Eh, fuck it. She's dead."
I thought I was unsentimental, but that was a whole new level.
This is the best one yet. Don't know if that level of living in the now is something to strive for or something to avoid...
We got a random call from someone who had bought a photo album from a charity shop and found all our family photos in it. They'd tracked us down to give them back. It was really good of them. These covered generations and most of them were before photography went digital so they were a unique collection.
My unsentimental family had tossed them all out while decluttering.
That is amazing! Little bits like this often remind me of how GOOD people are - love it and thanks for sharing.
I can totally see my husband do it. He doesn't like any of our wedding pics. If anything, he'd hang on to the engagement pics and candid shots of us since those are his favorites.We got a random call from someone who had bought a photo album from a charity shop and found all our family photos in it. They'd tracked us down to give them back. It was really good of them. These covered generations and most of them were before photography went digital so they were a unique collection.
My unsentimental family had tossed them all out while decluttering.
An old work friend of mine went to his father's house to visit -- when he got there, his dad was decluttering the downstairs living space and had tossed his wedding portrait in the garbage.
"Dad, you can't throw out your wedding picture. That's been over the fireplace forever."
"Eh, fuck it. She's dead."
I thought I was unsentimental, but that was a whole new level.
This is the best one yet. Don't know if that level of living in the now is something to strive for or something to avoid...
I love this thread.
I've got some impending potential drama brewing.
Bit of background: my dad stopped speaking to his brother and sister probably 15 and 10 years ago respectively. They both live in the same state as their dad, but my immediate family all lived in a different state. Of the three, my dad was the one who took care of grandpa, making sure he was covered, paying for his house and all that even when my aunt moved in with grandpa rent free during her separation and eventual divorce. Grandpa didn't like the idea of my dad just giving him money so he signed promissory notes indicating that the money dad gave him would be paid back by grandpa's estate. The notes were clear and they were even mentioned in grandpa's will. Dad was supposed to be the executor of grandpa'a estate.
Fast forward to December 2015 and my dad passes away after a decently lengthy cancer battle that eventually went to his brain, making him bed ridden and not all with it. Grandpa is still living. My mom has decided she's going to enforce the promissory notes against grandpa's eventual estate, not because she'll need the money, but to prevent aunt and uncle, who suddenly reappeared to play the roles of grieving siblings at my dad's service, from getting the money. Mom thinks they don't know about the notes, I'm not too sure. Grandpa claims about six months before dad died, dad told him he was ripping up the notes and not to worry about them.
Not a week after my dad's funeral, we learn that uncle has taken grandpa to get his will redrafted. Not looking forward to the near certain drama over this. Even without the notes, the estate won't be worth much. I've been trying to convince my mom it's not worth fighting with my aunt and uncle but I've gotten nowhere.
If you keep one picture of someone, you probably want it to be the wedding one. It's the one you paid the most to get, after all.
I love this thread.
I've got some impending potential drama brewing.
Bit of background: my dad stopped speaking to his brother and sister probably 15 and 10 years ago respectively. They both live in the same state as their dad, but my immediate family all lived in a different state. Of the three, my dad was the one who took care of grandpa, making sure he was covered, paying for his house and all that even when my aunt moved in with grandpa rent free during her separation and eventual divorce. Grandpa didn't like the idea of my dad just giving him money so he signed promissory notes indicating that the money dad gave him would be paid back by grandpa's estate. The notes were clear and they were even mentioned in grandpa's will. Dad was supposed to be the executor of grandpa'a estate.
Fast forward to December 2015 and my dad passes away after a decently lengthy cancer battle that eventually went to his brain, making him bed ridden and not all with it. Grandpa is still living. My mom has decided she's going to enforce the promissory notes against grandpa's eventual estate, not because she'll need the money, but to prevent aunt and uncle, who suddenly reappeared to play the roles of grieving siblings at my dad's service, from getting the money. Mom thinks they don't know about the notes, I'm not too sure. Grandpa claims about six months before dad died, dad told him he was ripping up the notes and not to worry about them.
Not a week after my dad's funeral, we learn that uncle has taken grandpa to get his will redrafted. Not looking forward to the near certain drama over this. Even without the notes, the estate won't be worth much. I've been trying to convince my mom it's not worth fighting with my aunt and uncle but I've gotten nowhere.
Wow, I read this with interest expecting the aunt and uncle to be trouble, but I did not expect that twist from Grandpa!
Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
There is an artisan glass bowl in my Mom and Dad's house that is the most hideous thing I've ever seen; and gets used as a weapon to make us behave..."If you don't straighten up, I'm giving you the bowl." Works every time.Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
Hmmm. I wonder if my parents still have that pink hairbrush they used to spank us.... I want my name on that one!There is an artisan glass bowl in my Mom and Dad's house that is the most hideous thing I've ever seen; and gets used as a weapon to make us behave..."If you don't straighten up, I'm giving you the bowl." Works every time.Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
Hmmm. I wonder if my parents still have that pink hairbrush they used to spank us.... I want my name on that one!There is an artisan glass bowl in my Mom and Dad's house that is the most hideous thing I've ever seen; and gets used as a weapon to make us behave..."If you don't straighten up, I'm giving you the bowl." Works every time.Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
My actual inheritance when my dear Grandfather passed away was a stuffed piranha...its 30 years old and still sticky. Grandpa got it as a joke for Christmas from his best friend, and kept it in his office for years. He is hideous, and I love it.Hmmm. I wonder if my parents still have that pink hairbrush they used to spank us.... I want my name on that one!There is an artisan glass bowl in my Mom and Dad's house that is the most hideous thing I've ever seen; and gets used as a weapon to make us behave..."If you don't straighten up, I'm giving you the bowl." Works every time.Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
My mom gave me her wooden spoon, though she's still alive and well :-)
Hmmm. I wonder if my parents still have that pink hairbrush they used to spank us.... I want my name on that one!There is an artisan glass bowl in my Mom and Dad's house that is the most hideous thing I've ever seen; and gets used as a weapon to make us behave..."If you don't straighten up, I'm giving you the bowl." Works every time.Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
My mom gave me her wooden spoon, though she's still alive and well :-)
A friend of mine's sister sued her stepmother after their dad died. She was convinced that he was a secretly a millionaire and that they stepmother had been stealing his money and hiding it in off-shore accounts and that she had made him change his will, etc. She even had my friend and her family followed by a private detective because she was convinced that they were helping the stepmother. She didn't think his wife deserved anything even though they had been married for over 20 years at this point. In reality, he left enough to for his widows to live out her last years in comfort, but not enormous wealth by any means. The stepmother was pretty kind in general and had offered for both my friend and her sister to come and get all the family heirlooms so that they would stay in the family.
The worst thing about the whole thing is that the sister married into a wealthy family, lives in a huge house, and doesn't need a dime. On the advice of her attorney, the stepmother offered a small amount of money (less than 10K) to make the whole thing go away and keep her from dragging her husband's name through the mud in the small town where they lived. The whole thing was just sad.
This seems to be a thing, kids thinking that their thrifty parents were rich.
Just heard a good one from my FIL:
He had an aunt who was the head buyer for womens clothing at Dillards. She made good money. She married a career Navy man. He made good money. They never had kids, and I don't think that he had very many relatives.
This women was always a mean old [bad word] to everyone. She'd visit and tell my FIL that he wasn't visiting his mother (her sister) enough--even though his mother had Alzheimers, couldn't remember him, was in a nursing home, and lived 2 hours away. And my FIL would come every single weekend and spend 4 hours minimum with a woman who had no idea who he was. She'd tell everyone what they were doing wrong, how they couldn't cook, etc. No body liked her; a few hadn't spoken with her in a long time out of feuds. Well, she outlives her husband, and finally passes away in the early 90's. My FIL, to his surprise, is left $12,000! So are MOST of his cousins--but the supposed favorite cousin of the Aunt's was left nothing! Not that he needed it as he was retired and without kids, but still!
My FIL's one cousin kept asking my FIL "why the hell did she give me and you money? She hated us!"
Sharing this one on behalf of my boss' wife, as it was told to me after a few beers - fake names used just to prevent any confusion since it all sounded a little too perfect to be true.
As a young man, Grandpa Al came to Australia with nothing but a suitcase and a dream. In that suitcase was a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius) violin however, so he had that going for him. Skip forward a couple decades and Grandpa Al has become older and frailer and it's up to his youngest daughter Belle to look after him in his final years since everyone else has moved interstate.
When Grandpa Al finally passes most of the family hasn't spoken to him in months and despite having 5 children, only a few bother to show up to his funeral.
Now, what DOES get their attention is that stradivarius violin that he'd kept locked up tight. Probably worth millions, the rest of his estate consists of his humble abode, its contents and the land it sat on. Something like 100k all up and his will is a barebones matter saying that everything is to be split evenly between the 5 children.
Immediately, children who didn't bother to show up to the funeral are calling Belle and pestering her about the Violin which had been Grandpa Al's pride and joy but never specifically mentioned in the will or insured because he wasn't a banking sort of guy. Everyone insists they had been promised it verbally and within days Belle is being pestered by four different lawyers and urged to take her own due to the amount of money involved.
By the time the dust settles, the family that was once distant is now fractured, family members and their spouses have lied to each other, had screaming matches, etc etc. Four lawyers' fees taken out of the estate have reduced it down to a fraction of its meagre amount and the Stradivarius is finally retrieved and valued at... less than a grand.
Turns out it was a fake. Either Grandpa Al had been swindled back in his 20s or he had bought the thing more recently and just spun a very convincing tall tale without realising how much strife it would cause.
Long story short, most of the family still won't talk to each other and the fake violin is sitting in a dusty cupboard somewhere in Belle's new house.
This seems to be a thing, kids thinking that their thrifty parents were rich.
I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of money and resources spent on them growing up, especially with regard to the opportunity cost they created for the parents. Much of the spending and time investment happens when the parents are in their twenties and thirties, and that's when a person gets the biggest bang for the buck from earning and investing.
My parents bought an old house from the estate of a rather eccentric old lady. We started working on the house, and some of the lady's kids stopped by to probe us to see if we found anything in the remodel.
My parents bought an old house from the estate of a rather eccentric old lady. We started working on the house, and some of the lady's kids stopped by to probe us to see if we found anything in the remodel.
Some dementia patients are known to hide money.
My aunt ignored my grandmother for months, then suddenly showed up to help clear out the house because she'd (correctly) heard my grandmother had been hiding jars and envelopes full of money.
That's it...I'm changing my will to reflect this exact plan.My FIL's one cousin kept asking my FIL "why the hell did she give me and you money? She hated us!"
Maybe her one final fuck-you was to get people to squabble over the money. "I'll cut out the one I like, give money to the ones I don't, this'll be a riot. Fuck 'em."
And some hide other things. A friend of my family with dementia hid jars of pee! Not what you want to find at the back of a closet.My parents bought an old house from the estate of a rather eccentric old lady. We started working on the house, and some of the lady's kids stopped by to probe us to see if we found anything in the remodel.
Some dementia patients are known to hide money.
My aunt ignored my grandmother for months, then suddenly showed up to help clear out the house because she'd (correctly) heard my grandmother had been hiding jars and envelopes full of money.
And some hide other things. A friend of my family with dementia hid jars of pee! Not what you want to find at the back of a closet.My parents bought an old house from the estate of a rather eccentric old lady. We started working on the house, and some of the lady's kids stopped by to probe us to see if we found anything in the remodel.
Some dementia patients are known to hide money.
My aunt ignored my grandmother for months, then suddenly showed up to help clear out the house because she'd (correctly) heard my grandmother had been hiding jars and envelopes full of money.
Yes, this. Which is how it should be. If you've worked hard and saved money, and you get old - you use that money for care. With money, you can live in a nicer place, have better food, and get better care. (I've seen a variety of retirement homes, some are darned near depressing.)This seems to be a thing, kids thinking that their thrifty parents were rich.
I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of money and resources spent on them growing up, especially with regard to the opportunity cost they created for the parents. Much of the spending and time investment happens when the parents are in their twenties and thirties, and that's when a person gets the biggest bang for the buck from earning and investing.
I think a lot of people also underestimate how expensive being old is. Any kind of professional care, be it a full-on nursing home or just someone who pops in to help with the shopping, gets expensive fast. If there's anything about our financial plans that keeps me up at night, it's the idea of burning through all our money in a few years of end-of-life care and then running out. My parents' house is worth a ton of money, almost a million pounds, but I can well imagine my generation not seeing any of it because of my parents needing to sell and spend all the money on just being really old. So even if there was money when the parent retired, it's not necessarily there when they die.
Ooh, I've got a story.
My brother-in-law recently inherited 80k from his deceased grandma's estate. Not exactly ideal for a 26-year-old father of 2 who can't hold a job due to extreme anger/alcoholism.
Since graduating with a degree in Music Business 3 years ago, he has worked for less than 3 months of that time. He quit a Home Depot part time job, was fired from a bank, and then moved his family into his mom's house to live rent-and-responsibility free until they left due to arguments with his brother.
Since inheriting 80k last summer, he now has less than half of it left. He hasn't worked since June, lost his kids in August, and now spends all day drinking with my sister in their 4-bedroom apartment (she refuses to work as well). They eat out at restaurants every day, window-shop, spend hundreds on iTunes, Amazon, etc. Meanwhile, I work 3 jobs to pay into their food stamps.
The money will be gone by summer. Meanwhile, my 60 year old parents are now raising a 4 and 1-year-old because of the horrible situation. The people at fault here refuse to acknowledge that they have a substance problem while they hemorrhage a gift that could have turned into $1.2M in 40 years if they had invested 75% of it.
All in all my mum and aunt pissed on at least 20 000€ (one year of post tax earning each) because they could not trust their kids...
Here's my family's version of this: My semi-deadbeat sister (I'm trying to be kind) shimmied under the parent's new-ish car and wrote her name on the chassis. We all knew about it and took it as a joke. Fast forward a year or two and both my parents are gone. My sibs decided to interpret that as she gets the car outside of her share of the estate because she wrote her name on it when my parents were alive. Um, no. Mom intended for their estate to be divided equally. She did not mean equal slices, plus a car on top of my sister's slice, but the car wasn't in the trust, so therefore open to interpretation. My take is that the sibs who had little involvement in my parent's end-of-life care are feeling a little guilty, so they voted for her to have it.* FWIW, my parent's estate was significantly reduced due to all of the life support they'd given that particular sister (plus what she'd embezzled from them) over the years.Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
All in all my mum and aunt pissed on at least 20 000€ (one year of post tax earning each) because they could not trust their kids...
I've been thinking about this a lot, especially since we don't have kids. We talk about how the elderly get paranoid, but we also know that the elderly are more vulnerable to being ripped off than the general population. So they probably know someone who was ripped off by a beloved child, niece/nephew, grandchild.
They know that they aren't as sharp as they were, they know that they don't understand the current economy, they don't want to get taken in by someone who just said a bunch of gobblygook. But they also know that they aren't qualified to tell the difference between gobblygook and not. Hell, have you seen some of the writing by people who work in social media about the companies who are being taken to the cleaners by companies who just use the right buzzwords?
My parents are loyal to their financial adviser - is he fleecing them more than usual? We don't have visibility. They're mostly ok atm, but in 5 years? And what about me? How do I protect _our_ assets from our likely decline in interest / context if not ability (no history of dementia on my side among those who lived past 90, but the SO's family medical history is murky)?
My parents bought an old house from the estate of a rather eccentric old lady. We started working on the house, and some of the lady's kids stopped by to probe us to see if we found anything in the remodel.
Some dementia patients are known to hide money.
My aunt ignored my grandmother for months, then suddenly showed up to help clear out the house because she'd (correctly) heard my grandmother had been hiding jars and envelopes full of money.
My parents just did this but with Fidelity. Dad feels more than competent right now, but mom is a bit of a wild card on financial management. Dad thinks of it kind of like an insurance plan in that not only will mom have money if he goes before her, but will also have a relationship built with a financial advisor who can help advise her. She has me too, but sometimes its hard for parents to think of going to their kids for advice. :)All in all my mum and aunt pissed on at least 20 000€ (one year of post tax earning each) because they could not trust their kids...
I've been thinking about this a lot, especially since we don't have kids. We talk about how the elderly get paranoid, but we also know that the elderly are more vulnerable to being ripped off than the general population. So they probably know someone who was ripped off by a beloved child, niece/nephew, grandchild.
They know that they aren't as sharp as they were, they know that they don't understand the current economy, they don't want to get taken in by someone who just said a bunch of gobblygook. But they also know that they aren't qualified to tell the difference between gobblygook and not. Hell, have you seen some of the writing by people who work in social media about the companies who are being taken to the cleaners by companies who just use the right buzzwords?
My parents are loyal to their financial adviser - is he fleecing them more than usual? We don't have visibility. They're mostly ok atm, but in 5 years? And what about me? How do I protect _our_ assets from our likely decline in interest / context if not ability (no history of dementia on my side among those who lived past 90, but the SO's family medical history is murky)?
When I'm old and gray, I plan to use Vanguard Advisory Services. Very reputable, charge a fair amount for their services, and they KEEP IT SIMPLE. This will greatly improve the transition to after I die as well to my loved ones (if they are smart enough to keep on using them until they can take over themselves)
I just remembered another good inheritance story that happened to my family a few years ago.
2003: Grandma died, leaving my grandpa a widower. Grandpa has lived modestly and amassed a multiple-million $ net worth. 3 children, including my mom.
2006: Grandpa inexplicably re-marries a miserable old shrew of a woman who shows nothing but distaste for our whole family, who tried very hard to be welcoming to her.
2009: Grandpa passes away from illness. Our family finds out that his 2nd wife had convinced him to change his entire estate, so all the money is left to her and her son from a previous marriage. Her son, who had been semi-friendly in our few interactions with him, completely ghosts during this fall-out.
Man... this thread is GOLD! I just binge-read all 19 pages (on a totally different note those are 7 hours of my life I'm never getting back, but it was totally worth it!). I knew that people turn batshit crazy as soon as money is involved but holy cow!
Seriously. If I'd ever catch my brother going through our parents' stuff while either one of them is on their death bed I would beat the living shit out of him. Fortunately for me he would do the same thing to me if the roles were reversed. And, more importantly, this is never ever going to happen. We have an excellent relationship, we're both financially responsible adults in our mid to late 30s now, we both have financially responsible spouses, and love and value our parents and inlaws so much more than any amount of money or stuff. Our parents have also always treated us equally. Not in a 'I gave your brother $2,000 to help finance his wedding so here's your $2,000 check' kinda of way but in that they helped us both out individually when we were in need. When I got married eight years ago we were still both in grad school and didn't have much money, so my parents offered to help us finance the wedding and made it clear from the very beginning that the money was a wedding gift, and that they don't ever want any of it back. My brother on the other hand got married much later in life and him and his wife already had a steady income when they got married so they didn't get any money for their wedding from them because, well, there was no need. In return when him and his wife bought their own condo to live in in 2015 I know for a fact that my parents chipped in on the downpayment and helped them get a better deal on their mortgage. I know this for a fact because I offered to chip in as well, and he told me he didn't need any more for the downpayment but he would be very grateful if I could help him purchase a kitchen for their new place instead (quite common in Germany to purchase a condo without even a toilet bowl in it). We are very open about our financial situations to each other, and there are no hard feelings either way. I have absolutely no idea how much my parents gave him and whether or not he has to pay back any of it (I highly doubt it though), and quite frankly I don't give a tiny rat's ass. The bottom line is that we're never asking for any help from them or each other, we offer it to each other if we feel they might need it for one thing or another. Which is probably why neither of us ever had any feeling of entitlement or guilt.
This thread makes me appreciate my family even more. Methinks I should tell them that more often.
Sharing this one on behalf of my boss' wife, as it was told to me after a few beers - fake names used just to prevent any confusion since it all sounded a little too perfect to be true.
As a young man, Grandpa Al came to Australia with nothing but a suitcase and a dream. In that suitcase was a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius) violin however, so he had that going for him. Skip forward a couple decades and Grandpa Al has become older and frailer and it's up to his youngest daughter Belle to look after him in his final years since everyone else has moved interstate.
When Grandpa Al finally passes most of the family hasn't spoken to him in months and despite having 5 children, only a few bother to show up to his funeral.
Now, what DOES get their attention is that stradivarius violin that he'd kept locked up tight. Probably worth millions, the rest of his estate consists of his humble abode, its contents and the land it sat on. Something like 100k all up and his will is a barebones matter saying that everything is to be split evenly between the 5 children.
Immediately, children who didn't bother to show up to the funeral are calling Belle and pestering her about the Violin which had been Grandpa Al's pride and joy but never specifically mentioned in the will or insured because he wasn't a banking sort of guy. Everyone insists they had been promised it verbally and within days Belle is being pestered by four different lawyers and urged to take her own due to the amount of money involved.
By the time the dust settles, the family that was once distant is now fractured, family members and their spouses have lied to each other, had screaming matches, etc etc. Four lawyers' fees taken out of the estate have reduced it down to a fraction of its meagre amount and the Stradivarius is finally retrieved and valued at... less than a grand.
Turns out it was a fake. Either Grandpa Al had been swindled back in his 20s or he had bought the thing more recently and just spun a very convincing tall tale without realising how much strife it would cause.
Long story short, most of the family still won't talk to each other and the fake violin is sitting in a dusty cupboard somewhere in Belle's new house.
Long time ago, I got few violin lessons from an old lady in exchange of helping her with emailing and printing documents from computer. She retired as a violinist after spending her entire career at a big symphony orchestra. One day she told me her violin would sell for more than $500k. I never knew violins could be so expensive. The violin I used for classes was rented for $30 bucks/month. :)
rpr, not a dower right state, I take it? Or an option to take an elective share? I'm surprised the grandmother couldn't sue for a portion of the inheritance (considering the daughters managed to get a small share). Google seems to say most states are covered by the elective share or community property state. (Unless they are not in the states.)
Wow, rpr, that is a terrible story! Doesn't it seem like some folks are so mean that they use their wills to continue making people miserable long after they are dead?
I think the Rom had the right idea when they burned the vardo after someone died. All their possessions - up in smoke. Nothing to fight over...
But in your story, it was beyond cruel to leave his wife with no resources.
So what happens then, if none of the sons take in the mom? Are there any social supports? Or are there a lot of widows that are out on the streets if the kids don't choose to take care of her?Typically there is lots of extended family around and the inheriting sons/DIL's often feel enough guilt via social/community pressure from family elders to take care of the mom.
Maybe should have given S2 both shares rather than his kids, if they wanted him to take care of mom (and made it contingent on taking care of mom). So was dad just oblivious to the troubles that could happen to his wife, didn't care or what?
So what happens then, if none of the sons take in the mom? Are there any social supports? Or are there a lot of widows that are out on the streets if the kids don't choose to take care of her?Typically there is lots of extended family around and the inheriting sons/DIL's often feel enough guilt via social/community pressure from family elders to take care of the mom.
Maybe should have given S2 both shares rather than his kids, if they wanted him to take care of mom (and made it contingent on taking care of mom). So was dad just oblivious to the troubles that could happen to his wife, didn't care or what?
Things are changing but slowly. For example, a more recent will/testament I have seen allows the wife to stay in the dead husband's house as long as she is alive and without any time limits. That's an improvement ;)
In some ways, it almost seems better if the husband dies intestate. The law then treats the wife as an equal claimant along with the children. There is some hope in that situation and the widow can then block any sales.
Sometimes the extended family can help directly as well. There maybe siblings of the widow along with kindly nephews and nieces (*) who may feel enough pity to help.
S2 was well aware as he schemed to get two shares to his two kids while claiming that he was disinherited. Other than S2's sons, none of the other grandkids inherited anything. Rumors abound that at the time the will was written, grandpa was not in good health both physically and mentally. S2 was the richest and most well off among all of the children but was always greedy for more along with DIL2.
(*) -- S2 is now dead while DIL2 is still alive. None of DIL2's two DILs will have anything to do with her due to her behaviour. Ironically, the one person who does pay attention to some extent to DIL2 is her niece (D1D1) who lives nearby and feels sorry for her. This is even though both D1D1 and her mom D1 were disinherited in grandpa's will due to the machinations of S2 and DIL2.
When my ex-in-laws died, they had left half the estate in 5 parts, once part to each of their children; and the other half to the middle son, who was the executor. Knowing all the offspring and having been divorced from one of them, I thought this a recipe for catastrophe, but it actually revealed their real insight into their children's characters. I am decades out of the marriage that connected me to them, but still see him with pleasure and admiration. Back when the parents were still alive, it was he who persuaded them to set up education trusts for each of the grandchildren, then invested them and doled them out, at least initially. The other siblings were, and are, bubbling in a vat of dysfunction, envy, and barely-suppressed conflict. He served honorably as the executor and wound up his parents' lives without the help of his siblings though with their complaint and sniping, so that when the first half of the estate was parted out, there was more money for each of them than there would have been. He accepted the other half of the inheritance and grew it. He told them he did not want to screw his brothers and sisters, but if they could not behave, he would. This largely checked their unruliness and public misbehavior, though it did nothing to stem the bitching. When all was settled, he split the second inheritance into 5 parts. Though it was his to keep by will and by right, he gave it to them equally. I don't know if any of them ever thanked him, and from a fullness of experience, very much doubt any did. The parents recognized his frugality, competence, generous spirit, and general crustiness, and they were right about him. To my children he is and will always be the favorite Reprobate Uncle. I conclude from his example that there are some very large people among us, and many of those they benefit will never realize they have been supported by a better than they.
[
My parents bought an old house from the estate of a rather eccentric old lady. We started working on the house, and some of the lady's kids stopped by to probe us to see if we found anything in the remodel.
My parents had updated wills and trusts and paid good money for these documents. Alas, they are so vaguely written that shit like this has happened, PLUS there will be a load of taxes due because the documents are too non-specific. There's a lesson or twenty in all of this.
This would actually make a very good soap opera.
I think a lot of people also underestimate how expensive being old is. Any kind of professional care, be it a full-on nursing home or just someone who pops in to help with the shopping, gets expensive fast. If there's anything about our financial plans that keeps me up at night, it's the idea of burning through all our money in a few years of end-of-life care and then running out. My parents' house is worth a ton of money, almost a million pounds, but I can well imagine my generation not seeing any of it because of my parents needing to sell and spend all the money on just being really old. So even if there was money when the parent retired, it's not necessarily there when they die.
I think a lot of people also underestimate how expensive being old is. Any kind of professional care, be it a full-on nursing home or just someone who pops in to help with the shopping, gets expensive fast. If there's anything about our financial plans that keeps me up at night, it's the idea of burning through all our money in a few years of end-of-life care and then running out. My parents' house is worth a ton of money, almost a million pounds, but I can well imagine my generation not seeing any of it because of my parents needing to sell and spend all the money on just being really old. So even if there was money when the parent retired, it's not necessarily there when they die.
One thing which annoys me is the fact that many people think they should get to keep their assets (especially their house) and expect the state to pay for care/nursing home costs so they can pass wealth onto the next generation. It's reductive, passes wealth onto the already wealthy and effectively makes normal tax payers subsidise someone's inheritance. One patient yesterday said she hadn't quit smoking because she hadn't got into the GP's for nicotine replacement and when her relative quipped you could buy it over the counter the patient said 'why should she?'. Alot of the elderly greatly overestimate the amount of tax they have paid in versus how much they have had out. The majority have had more out of the state than they ever put in.
It's amazing. I have had the unfortunate experience of watching a few older folks who spend their golden years wasting away in front of a TV, or computer, spewing propaganda from Fox news and the like. They then develop the delusion that they (being white,and the chosen ones) have "earned" everything they receive from the social welfare system, and more. They are also convinced that, as special snowflakes, they are in fact NOT getting a dime from any socialist program, only having their hard earned contributions returned to them. This coupled with the fact that they are entitled to keeping all of their assets, until such time as they transfer to the children, since the "government only wants to steal it". Naturally, all this is accompanied by the less than subtle racist undertones that "others" don't deserve the same benefits, since you know......................
The Average Medicare Beneficiary gets 3$ back for every 1$ contribution to the plan. How is that sustainable?
The Average Medicare Beneficiary gets 3$ back for every 1$ contribution to the plan. How is that sustainable?
The Average Medicare Beneficiary gets 3$ back for every 1$ contribution to the plan. How is that sustainable?
It can be sustainable if there's a big enough pool of people who pay into it but who never become beneficiaries. Maybe they die early in a traffic accident, maybe they're undocumented and have the contributions deducted from their paycheck but aren't eligible to claim anything later, maybe they move overseas to live out their golden years in a place with year-long summer weather, or maybe they just don't apply for it because they genuinely believe they don't need it.
Long time ago, I got few violin lessons from an old lady in exchange of helping her with emailing and printing documents from computer. She retired as a violinist after spending her entire career at a big symphony orchestra. One day she told me her violin would sell for more than $500k. I never knew violins could be so expensive. The violin I used for classes was rented for $30 bucks/month. :)
This would make me think that my entire house was just a $250K case for my $500k violin... And my car was a $3,000 armored transport for my $500K violin. It would skew my world-view to have an object so valuable in my possession...
The real question is - would you sell it for $250K (or whatever wholesale offer you can get out of the guy) right then and there? Much more likely to find a buyer quickly if you leave them room to make some money flipping the thing.Long time ago, I got few violin lessons from an old lady in exchange of helping her with emailing and printing documents from computer. She retired as a violinist after spending her entire career at a big symphony orchestra. One day she told me her violin would sell for more than $500k. I never knew violins could be so expensive. The violin I used for classes was rented for $30 bucks/month. :)
This would make me think that my entire house was just a $250K case for my $500k violin... And my car was a $3,000 armored transport for my $500K violin. It would skew my world-view to have an object so valuable in my possession...
When we watch "Antiques Roadshow" and the mystery knick-knack from the garage sale gets valued at hundred of thousands of dollars. All I can think of is if the "expert" says it is worth $500K then I'd gladly and eagerly sell it for $500K right then and there. Not because I'm greedy but because I don't want to own any sort of artwork or other treasure that is worth that much. Too many ways to lose that value.
Hmm, flipping isn't a skill I have for anything more complicated than pancakes. I don't know that I'd be able to line up a qualified real buyer-- I would stand a good chance of getting ripped off-- and there's also the chance that the appraiser is mistaken and the on-the-spot offer is too high. So I'd be likely to go with the bird in the hand.The real question is - would you sell it for $250K (or whatever wholesale offer you can get out of the guy) right then and there? Much more likely to find a buyer quickly if you leave them room to make some money flipping the thing.Long time ago, I got few violin lessons from an old lady in exchange of helping her with emailing and printing documents from computer. She retired as a violinist after spending her entire career at a big symphony orchestra. One day she told me her violin would sell for more than $500k. I never knew violins could be so expensive. The violin I used for classes was rented for $30 bucks/month. :)
This would make me think that my entire house was just a $250K case for my $500k violin... And my car was a $3,000 armored transport for my $500K violin. It would skew my world-view to have an object so valuable in my possession...
When we watch "Antiques Roadshow" and the mystery knick-knack from the garage sale gets valued at hundred of thousands of dollars. All I can think of is if the "expert" says it is worth $500K then I'd gladly and eagerly sell it for $500K right then and there. Not because I'm greedy but because I don't want to own any sort of artwork or other treasure that is worth that much. Too many ways to lose that value.
Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
*Have I mentioned that she took post-mortem, pre-cremation, behind the scenes at the mortuary and undoubtedly without authorization (or taste) pictures of our mother's body? No? On the first Mother's Day after Mom's death she texted one of those photos to another sister. Yes, she did, she really did. Special place in hell for that dick move.
Huh. My other sister was here this weekend. She reminded me that the reason my parents were so insistent on updating their wills and trust was that they had decided to reinstate my deadbeat sister, who had been showing signs of improvement. So they put her back into the will at a significant cost. She then reverted to her old ways and stole over $11k from them in addition to their ongoing life support for her before they died. She also helped herself to Mom's address book, which contained everyone's SSN'S. I'll be watching for that shoe to drop for the rest of my life.
My parents had updated wills and trusts and paid good money for these documents. Alas, they are so vaguely written that shit like this has happened, PLUS there will be a load of taxes due because the documents are too non-specific. There's a lesson or twenty in all of this.
My mom made this same mistake. Shortly before she passed, she dumped about $900 into having her will redrawn. The lawyer who did the work was a fuck up who ended up CREATING loose ends and causing the executor (me) needless headaches and legal expenses to get things straightened out. I have a suspicion that she did it because she wanted to "protect" my younger half sister, who is a dysfunctional mess and a monument to entitlement delusions. Mom wanted to include a clause that I, as the older brother, responsible adult and executor, would assume the position of chief enabler, and continue to coddle and support a grown woman who desperately needed a nuclear grade kick in the ass. I'm pretty sure that the document was such a poorly written piece of garbage due to the fact that other competent estate attorneys told her that they could not, and would not, include such a ridiculous and unenforceable clause.
in the end, much to most of the player's collective surprise, the sister's share was accepted by a trust designed to protect the inheritable assets of disabled adults. Personally, I thought it was an embarrassing misuse of the trust's intent and mission, but OTOH, it eliminated a big problem of how to move on and disengage from her never ending drama and bullshit.
So yea, I know how it feels to discover that a clown of a lawyer, who drafts a screwed up will, isn't much better than no will at all.
in the end, much to most of the player's collective surprise, the sister's share was accepted by a trust designed to protect the inheritable assets of disabled adults. Personally, I thought it was an embarrassing misuse of the trust's intent and mission, but OTOH, it eliminated a big problem of how to move on and disengage from her never ending drama and bullshit.
in the end, much to most of the player's collective surprise, the sister's share was accepted by a trust designed to protect the inheritable assets of disabled adults. Personally, I thought it was an embarrassing misuse of the trust's intent and mission, but OTOH, it eliminated a big problem of how to move on and disengage from her never ending drama and bullshit.
That's amazing. "You suck at money so much that we're treating you as disabled. Here's your monthly dole."
in the end, much to most of the player's collective surprise, the sister's share was accepted by a trust designed to protect the inheritable assets of disabled adults. Personally, I thought it was an embarrassing misuse of the trust's intent and mission, but OTOH, it eliminated a big problem of how to move on and disengage from her never ending drama and bullshit.
That's amazing. "You suck at money so much that we're treating you as disabled. Here's your monthly dole."
There's always been such a thing as "spendthrift" trusts which are indeed released in occasional chunks.
A few years ago I met a guy whose trust company paid for his apartment and utilities directly and gave him a stipend for food and other expenses... of course he was that much of a goof-up so I think whoever set up the trust got it right.
It's amazing. I have had the unfortunate experience of watching a few older folks who spend their golden years wasting away in front of a TV, or computer, spewing propaganda from Fox news and the like. They then develop the delusion that they (being white,and the chosen ones) have "earned" everything they receive from the social welfare system, and more. They are also convinced that, as special snowflakes, they are in fact NOT getting a dime from any socialist program, only having their hard earned contributions returned to them. This coupled with the fact that they are entitled to keeping all of their assets, until such time as they transfer to the children, since the "government only wants to steal it". Naturally, all this is accompanied by the less than subtle racist undertones that "others" don't deserve the same benefits, since you know......................
The cognitive dissonance is amazing, they use roads and infrastructure paid by the state, healthcare, social care and every facet of their life involves state expenditure. Its worse in the UK with the elderly not realising a hospital bed costs £300 a night, that one week stay with sepsis wiped out probably a year of tax they paid in one go. Hip replacement £7,000... it goes on and on. Then they likewise get racist and blame immigrants for the NHS's struggles, especially with brexit, not realising young immigrants are one of the main reason the UK's health service is still standing despite the greying of the country.
It's amazing. I have had the unfortunate experience of watching a few older folks who spend their golden years wasting away in front of a TV, or computer, spewing propaganda from Fox news and the like. They then develop the delusion that they (being white,and the chosen ones) have "earned" everything they receive from the social welfare system, and more. They are also convinced that, as special snowflakes, they are in fact NOT getting a dime from any socialist program, only having their hard earned contributions returned to them. This coupled with the fact that they are entitled to keeping all of their assets, until such time as they transfer to the children, since the "government only wants to steal it". Naturally, all this is accompanied by the less than subtle racist undertones that "others" don't deserve the same benefits, since you know......................
The cognitive dissonance is amazing, they use roads and infrastructure paid by the state, healthcare, social care and every facet of their life involves state expenditure. Its worse in the UK with the elderly not realising a hospital bed costs £300 a night, that one week stay with sepsis wiped out probably a year of tax they paid in one go. Hip replacement £7,000... it goes on and on. Then they likewise get racist and blame immigrants for the NHS's struggles, especially with brexit, not realising young immigrants are one of the main reason the UK's health service is still standing despite the greying of the country.
How do you combat this? My mom has suddenly (at least that her DD's knew of) turned into the worst example of US Conservative there is. Racist, prejudiced, intolerant, etc. If you don't discuss politics or current events, you'd never know.
Maybe if you get her out of her bubble. If she has positive, personal interactions withe people who are different than her, then she probably won't be so scared of different types of people.It's amazing. I have had the unfortunate experience of watching a few older folks who spend their golden years wasting away in front of a TV, or computer, spewing propaganda from Fox news and the like. They then develop the delusion that they (being white,and the chosen ones) have "earned" everything they receive from the social welfare system, and more. They are also convinced that, as special snowflakes, they are in fact NOT getting a dime from any socialist program, only having their hard earned contributions returned to them. This coupled with the fact that they are entitled to keeping all of their assets, until such time as they transfer to the children, since the "government only wants to steal it". Naturally, all this is accompanied by the less than subtle racist undertones that "others" don't deserve the same benefits, since you know......................
The cognitive dissonance is amazing, they use roads and infrastructure paid by the state, healthcare, social care and every facet of their life involves state expenditure. Its worse in the UK with the elderly not realising a hospital bed costs £300 a night, that one week stay with sepsis wiped out probably a year of tax they paid in one go. Hip replacement £7,000... it goes on and on. Then they likewise get racist and blame immigrants for the NHS's struggles, especially with brexit, not realising young immigrants are one of the main reason the UK's health service is still standing despite the greying of the country.
How do you combat this? My mom has suddenly (at least that her DD's knew of) turned into the worst example of US Conservative there is. Racist, prejudiced, intolerant, etc. If you don't discuss politics or current events, you'd never know.
Still can't see how anyone could support Trump with all his bad behavior. Lousy manners, hateful friends, mental issues, communication issues, selfish, and on and on and on...You know, it's funny, because I see those exact sentiments expressed about Hillary Clinton on more conservative sites! :P
Oh no here it goes.Sorry, I didn't mean to start anything--just trying to inject a little perspective with a bit of humor before anyone gets stuck in an echo chamber :D
Sudden behavior changes in elderly may be a sign of dementia.
Still can't see how anyone could support Trump with all his bad behavior. Lousy manners, hateful friends, mental issues, communication issues, selfish, and on and on and on...You know, it's funny, because I see those exact sentiments expressed about Hillary Clinton on more conservative sites! :P
You know, it's funny, because I see those exact sentiments expressed about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on Libertarian sites!Still can't see how anyone could support Trump with all his bad behavior. Lousy manners, hateful friends, mental issues, communication issues, selfish, and on and on and on...You know, it's funny, because I see those exact sentiments expressed about Hillary Clinton on more conservative sites! :P
Oh no here it goes.Sorry, I didn't mean to start anything--just trying to inject a little perspective with a bit of humor before anyone gets stuck in an echo chamber :D
My wife claims her parents have become much more extreme conservatives over the last ten years (which completely envelope our relationship).
10 years ago this month, her grandfather died, and her father managed the estate. We weren't married at the time, but based on several clues, I've calculated that more estate tax was paid than the total career after tax earnings of my father-in-law up to that point. That sort of event has to burn, having the gov't take away that kind of cheddar in one moment (and a moment in which you're hurting).
This is no longer precise under current law. It is true that taxes would have been paid for income, some dividends, rents collected, etc. It is also true that taxes would have been paid on monies used to buy investments (stocks, bonds, property, etc.), unless of course they were purchased within a tax sheltered account.My wife claims her parents have become much more extreme conservatives over the last ten years (which completely envelope our relationship).
10 years ago this month, her grandfather died, and her father managed the estate. We weren't married at the time, but based on several clues, I've calculated that more estate tax was paid than the total career after tax earnings of my father-in-law up to that point. That sort of event has to burn, having the gov't take away that kind of cheddar in one moment (and a moment in which you're hurting).
I've always had a problem with estate taxes. I understand them, but the money has already been taxed--probably multiple times (income, then capital gains). Then they tax it again?
Obviously nowadays it is a HUGE estate if it is getting taxed, but it still irks me.
Doesn't make a good case for shifting wealth to your children bit by bit long before death?
Doesn't make a good case for shifting wealth to your children bit by bit long before death?
As you said, unless your estate is huge ($5.6MM single, $11MM married), all unrealized gains are transferred to beneficiaries having paid no tax. If you purchase stocks that do not pay a dividend, that can easily be millions of dollars in gains that were never taxed.
As you said, unless your estate is huge ($5.6MM single, $11MM married), all unrealized gains are transferred to beneficiaries having paid no tax. If you purchase stocks that do not pay a dividend, that can easily be millions of dollars in gains that were never taxed.
Don't forget about State Inheritance and tax laws. In DC, the inheritance tax kicks in at $1M.
Estate taxes should have nothing to do with tax basis or what kind of income it was our anything else. It's a tax on dying with money because we as society think that people dying with money is bad for society long term. It leads to inequality, a landed gentry and oligarchy.
Personally I think the estate tax should be more like 100% on all assets over $10 million or so with no exceptions at all. It's enough to not need to sell most farms or houses and if liquid assets, it allows you to provide a median income to 5 children for the rest of their lives. That will never pass though.
Trusts and other shelters are all created under laws, and if the lawmakers wanted to ensure that money in them was taxed, they could. The fact that they don't, and that the fact that they don't is used to argue against having the tax, is itself telling.Estate taxes should have nothing to do with tax basis or what kind of income it was our anything else. It's a tax on dying with money because we as society think that people dying with money is bad for society long term. It leads to inequality, a landed gentry and oligarchy.
Personally I think the estate tax should be more like 100% on all assets over $10 million or so with no exceptions at all. It's enough to not need to sell most farms or houses and if liquid assets, it allows you to provide a median income to 5 children for the rest of their lives. That will never pass though.
The truly wealthy will hide it all in trusts and other shelters anyway.
Nah, the US is just fine on that front. Dynastic wealth is the exception, not the rule.Trusts and other shelters are all created under laws, and if the lawmakers wanted to ensure that money in them was taxed, they could. The fact that they don't, and that the fact that they don't is used to argue against having the tax, is itself telling.Estate taxes should have nothing to do with tax basis or what kind of income it was our anything else. It's a tax on dying with money because we as society think that people dying with money is bad for society long term. It leads to inequality, a landed gentry and oligarchy.
Personally I think the estate tax should be more like 100% on all assets over $10 million or so with no exceptions at all. It's enough to not need to sell most farms or houses and if liquid assets, it allows you to provide a median income to 5 children for the rest of their lives. That will never pass though.
The truly wealthy will hide it all in trusts and other shelters anyway.
I'm with nawhite: estate tax is the only way to prevent oligarchy - which you pretty much already have in the USA, right?
Nah, the US is just fine on that front. Dynastic wealth is the exception, not the rule.Trusts and other shelters are all created under laws, and if the lawmakers wanted to ensure that money in them was taxed, they could. The fact that they don't, and that the fact that they don't is used to argue against having the tax, is itself telling.Estate taxes should have nothing to do with tax basis or what kind of income it was our anything else. It's a tax on dying with money because we as society think that people dying with money is bad for society long term. It leads to inequality, a landed gentry and oligarchy.
Personally I think the estate tax should be more like 100% on all assets over $10 million or so with no exceptions at all. It's enough to not need to sell most farms or houses and if liquid assets, it allows you to provide a median income to 5 children for the rest of their lives. That will never pass though.
The truly wealthy will hide it all in trusts and other shelters anyway.
I'm with nawhite: estate tax is the only way to prevent oligarchy - which you pretty much already have in the USA, right?
Inheritance taxes are a complex subject and it's really hard to draw any conclusions on what the best approach should be because wealth comes in all shapes and sizes. It's really, really hard to come up with rules that are fair to everyone.
Most of us believe that if your home is your most expensive asset you're in serious trouble, but the vast majority of humans don't agree with us and the laws do tend to be written to cater to the majority. Or the influential.
Indeed, especially when wealth from a family business or farm that requires daily work and attention is treated the same as wealth from a stock portfolio. The assets don't behave the same way.
...
Trying to write a law that takes all those scenarios into account and taxes each person fairly would be nearly impossible. Estate taxes are vicious to people who inherit illiquid assets or assets that require upkeep or maintenance costs. For most non-Mustachian affluent people, a substantial amount of wealth is still in the family home. Most of us believe that if your home is your most expensive asset you're in serious trouble, but the vast majority of humans don't agree with us and the laws do tend to be written to cater to the majority. Or the influential.
Indeed, especially when wealth from a family business or farm that requires daily work and attention is treated the same as wealth from a stock portfolio. The assets don't behave the same way.
...
Trying to write a law that takes all those scenarios into account and taxes each person fairly would be nearly impossible. Estate taxes are vicious to people who inherit illiquid assets or assets that require upkeep or maintenance costs. For most non-Mustachian affluent people, a substantial amount of wealth is still in the family home. Most of us believe that if your home is your most expensive asset you're in serious trouble, but the vast majority of humans don't agree with us and the laws do tend to be written to cater to the majority. Or the influential.
The bit that really gets me is why the inheritance laws try to protect so many of these scenarios. If I've arranged my entire financial life so that my sole asset is a (literal or metaphorical) white elephant that is valuable but needs expensive feed and medical care why should my heirs be protected from my bad choices. They shouldn't be obliged to accept land or elephants that they don't want or the upkeep makes them uneconomic (this is already the case here, I think it is the same other places?). But I see no reason that estates should be protected anymore than I should be protected if I have all my wealth in my house and can't pay my cable bill. Or have all my wealth in my elephant and can't pay the vet. If you have an asset and can't pay a bill you need to raise capital or sell the asset.
The main reason these kinds of situations develop is due to the way the US allows heirs to inherit things with a stepped up basis. It encourages elderly people to hang on to assets long past the time they may need or be able to manage them well, just to avoid the tax hit. And the costs of not understanding this can be huge. I am a little worried about my mom, for example. She has gotten the idea in her head that since the people next door have expressed an interest in her house, maybe she should sell it to them. I keep telling her that since her original plan was that the house would go to my brother, she should stick to that. Because if she sells to the neighbors now, not only would she probably get less than it is worth (she thinks it is only worth the tax assessed value, which is way lower than market value), she would take a HUGE tax hit. Whereas if we hang on to the house until she passes, my brother would then get the house at the stepped up basis, and be able to sell it for much more (he is not sentimental about it going to the neighbors) besides.
Reminder to self: Put getting a meeting with a lawyer scheduled on the to do list soon. We need proper power of attorney to make sure mom doesn't do anything crazy.....
The house was built in the late '60s/early '70s. A new roof was put on several years ago, but it has otherwise not been updated. But it is a fairly large waterfront property within an hour's drive of Seattle. The capital gains will far exceed the $250k tax-free allowance (my mom was widowed over 30 years ago).
She is still with it mentally, does not have dementia, and I don't think she would do anything rash with the property, but we do need to get power of attorney set up so that we can step in as needed to oversee these higher level decisions. She has granted my sister durable POA if she is incapacitated, but we probably need a higher level of oversight than that.
Just for the record, all of us would be totally ok if she did sell the property and spend all the money down. It just would not be the most prudent financial approach. It is not likely to come to that because she still has a significant amount in savings to cover any assisted living costs over and above what she gets from soc sec and her REIT investments.
I do appreciate the listing of the different kinds of assets, but wealthy people who own these assets also have access to insurance markets, from which they can buy an insurance policy to generate the cash that would pay tax for the value of the estate. Insurance companies should be lobbying to keep the estate tax.
I do appreciate the listing of the different kinds of assets, but wealthy people who own these assets also have access to insurance markets, from which they can buy an insurance policy to generate the cash that would pay tax for the value of the estate. Insurance companies should be lobbying to keep the estate tax.
Why do you think Warren Buffett is such a fan of the estate tax?
But he's not leaving any money to his kids. Not sure about his wife (I assume some sort of trust, or co-ownership so not an inheritance). He is giving away most of his wealth (along with Bill and Melinda Gates, etc.). Of course, even his leftovers are sizable.
I think I just got my first taste of whats to come. My in-laws made us walk around their house and put our names on things we wanted to inherit. I found it really awkward, like being a vulture!
Personally I really admire how both Buffett and Gates have handled the succession issue.
I think I just got my first taste of whats to come. My in-laws made us walk around their house and put our names on things we wanted to inherit. I found it really awkward, like being a vulture!
Personally I really admire how both Buffett and Gates have handled the succession issue.
I admire what Buffett and Gates do because I think it makes them good people, but that doesn't mean I think their actions should be law. Personally, I'm of the mind that estates should pass how the person who has the estate wants, and the state has no right to that money. If the person who earned or otherwise held the money thinks it should go to their Paris Hilton-esque daughter to blow in a lifetime of partying and drugs and bullshit, so be it; I don't think the government should get their greedy hooks in it.
I think I just got my first taste of whats to come. My in-laws made us walk around their house and put our names on things we wanted to inherit. I found it really awkward, like being a vulture!
My grandmother recently passed, and because most of her/our family is scattered pretty far around the country, we took some time when we were all in town for the funeral (grandkids/spouses, kids/spouses, etc) and went through her whole house and distributed as much as could be while everyone was there. Did feel a little odd to do that the night of the wake/before the funeral (i.e., she wasn't even buried yet) but it made practical sense. And honestly, she had plenty of "stuff" but almost none of it was anything anyone really wanted. The Waterford crystal and china was distributed amongst the granddaughters and female grand-spouses, a few more valuable pieces of jewelry to the daughter and female spouses of the sons and the rest to the grandkids as they wanted, and then the odd picture or other memento was claimed, but in reality there is a whole small townhome's worth of stuff that no one really wants and is hard to give away. Sadly, most of it just went into a dumpster. The fortunate thing was that even though that side of the family doesn't always get along, the whole process with like 15 of us in the house was very civil and no one got bent out of shape about anything. Anything saleable remaining (house, car, etc) will be sold and distributed equally to the three children of my grandma.
Personally, I'm of the mind that estates should pass how the person who has the estate wants, and the state has no right to that money. If the person who earned or otherwise held the money thinks it should go to their Paris Hilton-esque daughter to blow in a lifetime of partying and drugs and bullshit, so be it; I don't think the government should get their greedy hooks in it.Yeah, I don't quite understand it either. If the wealthy person decides to spend the money on a yacht or a mansion or a Bentley or eating at fancy restaurants, there's no extra tax. But if they want to give it to their kids (upon their death), then the tax man demands an extra pound of flesh. You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Uncle Sam wants you to use it or lose it. And he doesn't want you to enjoy 'Hookers & Blow'.Personally, I'm of the mind that estates should pass how the person who has the estate wants, and the state has no right to that money. If the person who earned or otherwise held the money thinks it should go to their Paris Hilton-esque daughter to blow in a lifetime of partying and drugs and bullshit, so be it; I don't think the government should get their greedy hooks in it.Yeah, I don't quite understand it either. If the wealthy person decides to spend the money on a yacht or a mansion or a Bentley or eating at fancy restaurants, there's no extra tax. But if they want to give it to their kids (upon their death), then the tax man demands an extra pound of flesh. You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?Donald J Trump.
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?
Personally, I'm of the mind that estates should pass how the person who has the estate wants, and the state has no right to that money. If the person who earned or otherwise held the money thinks it should go to their Paris Hilton-esque daughter to blow in a lifetime of partying and drugs and bullshit, so be it; I don't think the government should get their greedy hooks in it.Yeah, I don't quite understand it either. If the wealthy person decides to spend the money on a yacht or a mansion or a Bentley or eating at fancy restaurants, there's no extra tax. But if they want to give it to their kids (upon their death), then the tax man demands an extra pound of flesh. You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?
Personally, I'm of the mind that estates should pass how the person who has the estate wants, and the state has no right to that money. If the person who earned or otherwise held the money thinks it should go to their Paris Hilton-esque daughter to blow in a lifetime of partying and drugs and bullshit, so be it; I don't think the government should get their greedy hooks in it.Yeah, I don't quite understand it either. If the wealthy person decides to spend the money on a yacht or a mansion or a Bentley or eating at fancy restaurants, there's no extra tax. But if they want to give it to their kids (upon their death), then the tax man demands an extra pound of flesh. You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?
You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Anybody who is in federal estate tax territory is NOT going to deplete their assets by giving their kids/grandkids 14k/year. As noted upthread, state taxes may be a different ballgame.
I don't see why this isn't practical. Seems like an excellent way for those near the federal taxable thresholds to ensure they limit the taxes and maximize money going to the family.
Personally, I'm of the mind that estates should pass how the person who has the estate wants, and the state has no right to that money. If the person who earned or otherwise held the money thinks it should go to their Paris Hilton-esque daughter to blow in a lifetime of partying and drugs and bullshit, so be it; I don't think the government should get their greedy hooks in it.Yeah, I don't quite understand it either. If the wealthy person decides to spend the money on a yacht or a mansion or a Bentley or eating at fancy restaurants, there's no extra tax. But if they want to give it to their kids (upon their death), then the tax man demands an extra pound of flesh. You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?
How do you combat this? My mom has suddenly (at least that her DD's knew of) turned into the worst example of US Conservative there is. Racist, prejudiced, intolerant, etc. If you don't discuss politics or current events, you'd never know.
Sadly, hate is taught and is based on fear. Hard as it seems to muster, a grain of empathy that the person in question was taught by bigots might help a tiny bit. In the case of dementia, once the rational mind has checked out, fear and paranoia often step in to fill the gap. Hateful, absolutely, but not always within the hater's control, strange as that sounds.How do you combat this? My mom has suddenly (at least that her DD's knew of) turned into the worst example of US Conservative there is. Racist, prejudiced, intolerant, etc. If you don't discuss politics or current events, you'd never know.
I have no idea, sadly racism often goes with stupidity. A few nights ago a patient started getting racist about the foreign doctors in A&E. Of four of us I was the only 'English' doctor (ironically not born in England but white so that was good enough for the patient). The racist ignoramus didn't realise there would be no A&E service without foreign doctors.
Remember that it is $14k per person. A couple with 3 married kids could transfer $162k per year. Each unmarried grandkid, nephew and whatnot is another $28k per yearYou can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Anybody who is in federal estate tax territory is NOT going to deplete their assets by giving their kids/grandkids 14k/year. As noted upthread, state taxes may be a different ballgame.
I don't see why this isn't practical. Seems like an excellent way for those near the federal taxable thresholds to ensure they limit the taxes and maximize money going to the family.
Yup. And people who are well into the federal estate tax territory hopefully don't start their estate planning 6 months before croaking. Say you expect to die at 85 (the wealthy tend to live longer than most), at 70 you've already been retired a couple of years and know what your future looks like. You can start your "exit strategy" and give away millions over the next decade+, provided you have enough heirs and charitable recipients. You do this every January 1 by sitting down with your spouse and writing all your checks for the year in 30 minutes.Remember that it is $14k per person. A couple with 3 married kids could transfer $162k per year. Each unmarried grandkid, nephew and whatnot is another $28k per yearYou can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Anybody who is in federal estate tax territory is NOT going to deplete their assets by giving their kids/grandkids 14k/year. As noted upthread, state taxes may be a different ballgame.
I don't see why this isn't practical. Seems like an excellent way for those near the federal taxable thresholds to ensure they limit the taxes and maximize money going to the family.
Could you cash those checks and just put it in the safe? I mean its your money - who is to say you don't like to spend alot? Then hand over the cash to the family later when you feel like it?
Could you cash those checks and just put it in the safe? I mean its your money - who is to say you don't like to spend alot? Then hand over the cash to the family later when you feel like it?
Sure, but cash on hand, if it's still "yours", is counted for the purposes of estate taxes. I thought the discussion was about how to avoid estate taxes. Unless you've completed the gift, it would still be included in your estate.
Also, if you accumulated several years' worth of giving in your safe, then when you did hand it over, you might run afoul of the $14K per person per year limit, which would either result in gift taxes or a reduction in your estate tax exemption later when you did pass away.
Or, if you did have a safe full of cash and didn't declare it, then you'd probably be committing federal felonious tax evasion and/or perjury if you later sign an income tax or estate tax return.
Interesting--I was unaware that the basis was reset on inheritance. I think that either the basis should remain as-is OR the money gets taxed when transferred. Or allow the inheritors to stick it in an IRA :DYeah, I don't quite understand it either. If the wealthy person decides to spend the money on a yacht or a mansion or a Bentley or eating at fancy restaurants, there's no extra tax. But if they want to give it to their kids (upon their death), then the tax man demands an extra pound of flesh. You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?
Do you both agree that unrealized gains should continue to be taxed at 0% and stepped up in basis for the first $5 million? What about after that amount. Current taxes for the living maxes out at 20% for long term capital gains, but 39.6% for income. What are your positions as to why this is "fair"? Max inheritance tax is 40%, very similar to the max income rates. Why should capital gains be taxed at a lower rate than income. To that end, why should my rental income be treated as regular income, but my dividends are not? Why shouldn't all income taxed the same?
Would you both agree that the cost basis should not be taxed at all since it has already been taxed, but any gains, unrealized or not, should eventually be taxed. That may be by the beneficiary when they eventually sell at the ORIGINAL cost basis with the profit taxed at their tax rate.
Why should anyone receive any gain without being taxed eventually, minus reasonable exclusions like primary residence home selling or the multi-millions in inheritance exclusion from taxes as examples?
If I take my income, after it is taxed, and hire someone to do work for me, they will also be taxed on THEIR income. That was originally simply MY already taxed income. I would argue this money should not be taxed well before inheritance money is excluded, they at least did something for it. Why should an inheritance get MORE favorable treatment than labor?
Really? What restaurants outside of Delaware have no sales tax? If i buy a Bentley there is sales tax, pkus registration and inspection tax.To clarify, I said "extra" taxes. Whether Grandpa Moneybags spends the money on a yacht, or his kids spend it on Gucci purses, it'll get taxed at that point.
Transfers of money are often taxed
Interesting--I was unaware that the basis was reset on inheritance. I think that either the basis should remain as-is OR the money gets taxed when transferred. Or allow the inheritors to stick it in an IRA :D
Interesting--I was unaware that the basis was reset on inheritance. I think that either the basis should remain as-is OR the money gets taxed when transferred. Or allow the inheritors to stick it in an IRA :D
If nothing else, resetting the basis makes sense from a record keeping standpoint. Maybe this gets less important as brokers have become more computerized... but there will be holdovers for decades even with that. The beneficiaries may not be able to find records of ownership. Consider, for instance, the headache in determining the basis on a 100lb bucket of silver coins. The best guess would be to set the basis at the "newest" coin.
Why do I oppose an inheritance tax? I believe any burden a government places on citizens should be tied to some benefit the government provides in exchange, e.g. gas taxes that pay for road maintenance, income and sales taxes that fund the law enforcement,and a judicial system that ensure stability and predictability, social security taxes that pay retirees (even if I wish I could opt out of it, at least the taxes are directly related to a govt function). Inheritance taxes aren't tied to a government function of any sort, other than what talltexan mentioned about ensuring the orderly transferring of the estate.
I would prefer to tax yearly unrealized gains before accepting that lazy paperwork is a valid reason to allow millions of a persons inheritance to be transfered to others at a rate of 0%.It *does* seem a bit odd that inheritors get a free Basis reset
How about if you have no paperwork, it is all taxed at the tax rate of the beneficiaries. I have a feeling excellent records would then be kept, don't you?
As a side note, I absolutely HATE the phrase "paying your fair share". I find the phrase absolutely worthless and not at all helpful. I get angry when I hear someone use it. How in the world could a billionaires "fair share" be millions or billions, while an unemployed persons is $0. They are living in the same country. To me, it is all about the fairness of the tax SYSTEM we choose, not in what the overall dollar value one ends up paying. I am sure most billionaires disagree with me.
Very interesting position. I could see this as some combination of your overall tax bill, superimposed over those popular charts that show where $1 is spent. I do like the idea of everyone seeing your total tax burden, and where exactly it goes. Maybe people would be a little more aggressive is demanding we pay down the debt. 6% of every dollar in 2013 was used to pay interest on debt.I'm guessing the general population already pays more than 6% of their income on interest as it is, so I'm not sure how effective that argument would be :) But yeah, I wish government expenditures were better publicized.
It could lead to a more informed dialog, if that is really what we want. I am not so sure the people that make those decisions are in favor of a more informed populous.
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?+1
Thanks.
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?
Thanks.
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?
Thanks.
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?
Thanks.
I'll own this. It looks like it was me that took the thread in a different direction. Quite honestly, it was a few posts before I realized this conversation was even in this thread. Sorry about that.
I will steer the conversation back to the original thread while still tying in to my runaway post.
I am the executor for my father. We differ politically, but we still have mutual respect for each others position. There is no way either of us will change each others mind. He has never really played by the rules, he believes they are for other people, not him. I am very much a play by the rules kind of person.
He would rather I remove worth from his estate than leave it in his estate to be taxed. I will not, and I keep telling him I will not. It is a crime, and his money is not worth going to jail for. I am not naive, I know it happens, a LOT. Even little things like "take the silverware so Aunt Ruth doesn't get it", or "remove the coin collection from the house when I die" kind of instructions happen all the time. I will not play that game. It does lead to some very interesting conversations, but fewer and fewer of them as time moves on. I guess not really true drama, but it sure could have been, with a potential prison story to boot.
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?
Thanks.
I'll own this. It looks like it was me that took the thread in a different direction. Quite honestly, it was a few posts before I realized this conversation was even in this thread. Sorry about that.
I will steer the conversation back to the original thread while still tying in to my runaway post.
I am the executor for my father. We differ politically, but we still have mutual respect for each others position. There is no way either of us will change each others mind. He has never really played by the rules, he believes they are for other people, not him. I am very much a play by the rules kind of person.
He would rather I remove worth from his estate than leave it in his estate to be taxed. I will not, and I keep telling him I will not. It is a crime, and his money is not worth going to jail for. I am not naive, I know it happens, a LOT. Even little things like "take the silverware so Aunt Ruth doesn't get it", or "remove the coin collection from the house when I die" kind of instructions happen all the time. I will not play that game. It does lead to some very interesting conversations, but fewer and fewer of them as time moves on. I guess not really true drama, but it sure could have been, with a potential prison story to boot.
What he's proposing is not illegal. He's within his rights to dispose of what he owns before dying.
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?
Thanks.
I'll own this. It looks like it was me that took the thread in a different direction. Quite honestly, it was a few posts before I realized this conversation was even in this thread. Sorry about that.
I will steer the conversation back to the original thread while still tying in to my runaway post.
I am the executor for my father. We differ politically, but we still have mutual respect for each others position. There is no way either of us will change each others mind. He has never really played by the rules, he believes they are for other people, not him. I am very much a play by the rules kind of person.
He would rather I remove worth from his estate than leave it in his estate to be taxed. I will not, and I keep telling him I will not. It is a crime, and his money is not worth going to jail for. I am not naive, I know it happens, a LOT. Even little things like "take the silverware so Aunt Ruth doesn't get it", or "remove the coin collection from the house when I die" kind of instructions happen all the time. I will not play that game. It does lead to some very interesting conversations, but fewer and fewer of them as time moves on. I guess not really true drama, but it sure could have been, with a potential prison story to boot.
What he's proposing is not illegal. He's within his rights to dispose of what he owns before dying.
Not before he dies. He wants me to remove items after his death, and not claim these items as belonging to the estate. I should have phrased that better.
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?
Thanks.
I'll own this. It looks like it was me that took the thread in a different direction. Quite honestly, it was a few posts before I realized this conversation was even in this thread. Sorry about that.
I will steer the conversation back to the original thread while still tying in to my runaway post.
I am the executor for my father. We differ politically, but we still have mutual respect for each others position. There is no way either of us will change each others mind. He has never really played by the rules, he believes they are for other people, not him. I am very much a play by the rules kind of person.
He would rather I remove worth from his estate than leave it in his estate to be taxed. I will not, and I keep telling him I will not. It is a crime, and his money is not worth going to jail for. I am not naive, I know it happens, a LOT. Even little things like "take the silverware so Aunt Ruth doesn't get it", or "remove the coin collection from the house when I die" kind of instructions happen all the time. I will not play that game. It does lead to some very interesting conversations, but fewer and fewer of them as time moves on. I guess not really true drama, but it sure could have been, with a potential prison story to boot.
What he's proposing is not illegal. He's within his rights to dispose of what he owns before dying.
Not before he dies. He wants me to remove items after his death, and not claim these items as belonging to the estate. I should have phrased that better.
Maybe not worth the cost of updating a will... but it really seems like it would be easier to just specify things like that. My Mom's/Dad's wills had some line in it (paraphrasing and IANAL) "I reserve the right to attach a list of stuff and designate whom it should go to." They never created the list... but it seems like they were thinking ahead on giving away the silver to someone other than Aunt Ruthie and giving the coin collection to little Bobby.
I am really explaining this poorly. He was requesting that I embezzle funds from his estate in order to keep the value of his estate below taxable amounts. If I give Bobby the $12,000,000 coin collection like he wants, but do not claim that as belonging to the estate, that is a crime the executor is committing, and I would be risking prison time just to give away stuff. The value of the collection in this example is simply for emphasis.Aren't there ways around this, like a trust of some sort? I'm not an estate lawyer, just curious.
I am really explaining this poorly. He was requesting that I embezzle funds from his estate in order to keep the value of his estate below taxable amounts. If I give Bobby the $12,000,000 coin collection like he wants, but do not claim that as belonging to the estate, that is a crime the executor is committing, and I would be risking prison time just to give away stuff. The value of the collection in this example is simply for emphasis.Aren't there ways around this, like a trust of some sort? I'm not an estate lawyer, just curious.
If he were to give it away, it would still be subject to the $14k per year per person limit right?I am really explaining this poorly. He was requesting that I embezzle funds from his estate in order to keep the value of his estate below taxable amounts. If I give Bobby the $12,000,000 coin collection like he wants, but do not claim that as belonging to the estate, that is a crime the executor is committing, and I would be risking prison time just to give away stuff. The value of the collection in this example is simply for emphasis.Aren't there ways around this, like a trust of some sort? I'm not an estate lawyer, just curious.
I imagine he could give it away before he dies - that would sidestep the issue neatly.
If he were to give it away, it would still be subject to the $14k per year per person limit right?I am really explaining this poorly. He was requesting that I embezzle funds from his estate in order to keep the value of his estate below taxable amounts. If I give Bobby the $12,000,000 coin collection like he wants, but do not claim that as belonging to the estate, that is a crime the executor is committing, and I would be risking prison time just to give away stuff. The value of the collection in this example is simply for emphasis.Aren't there ways around this, like a trust of some sort? I'm not an estate lawyer, just curious.
I imagine he could give it away before he dies - that would sidestep the issue neatly.
If he were to give it away, it would still be subject to the $14k per year per person limit right?I am really explaining this poorly. He was requesting that I embezzle funds from his estate in order to keep the value of his estate below taxable amounts. If I give Bobby the $12,000,000 coin collection like he wants, but do not claim that as belonging to the estate, that is a crime the executor is committing, and I would be risking prison time just to give away stuff. The value of the collection in this example is simply for emphasis.Aren't there ways around this, like a trust of some sort? I'm not an estate lawyer, just curious.
I imagine he could give it away before he dies - that would sidestep the issue neatly.
Who would friggin' know unless it was referenced on insurance documents and there was a big investigation? I'm not feeling the urge to tell the gov't every last detail about my things. Of course this urge isn't important b/c I don't have anything of value to worry about. ;)
I can only imagine that in the well-moneyed families that things are quietly moved from generation to generation all the time.
If he were to give it away, it would still be subject to the $14k per year per person limit right?I am really explaining this poorly. He was requesting that I embezzle funds from his estate in order to keep the value of his estate below taxable amounts. If I give Bobby the $12,000,000 coin collection like he wants, but do not claim that as belonging to the estate, that is a crime the executor is committing, and I would be risking prison time just to give away stuff. The value of the collection in this example is simply for emphasis.Aren't there ways around this, like a trust of some sort? I'm not an estate lawyer, just curious.
I imagine he could give it away before he dies - that would sidestep the issue neatly.
Who would friggin' know unless it was referenced on insurance documents and there was a big investigation? I'm not feeling the urge to tell the gov't every last detail about my things. Of course this urge isn't important b/c I don't have anything of value to worry about. ;)
I can only imagine that in the well-moneyed families that things are quietly moved from generation to generation all the time.
How would you respond to the following document found in your dad's desk:
A to-do list that says, "Remember to return the coin collection I gave to Bobby."
The coin collection would be problematic if it were being insured as a rider to the deceased's home owner's policy. Now it's documented, even has an assessed value, and ought to be taxed (subject to the exemption, of course).
Or, you could put that collection within a trust.
Whatever you do don't give a lot to two people 50/50 ... that is what I am going through right now....
I'm not sure what Mom was thinking when she did this 50/50 split but it is just a big headache.
Not everything your parents plan to leave behind is valuable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2017/02/12/sorry-nobody-wants-your-parents-stuff/#7072571724ed
Not everything your parents plan to leave behind is valuable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2017/02/12/sorry-nobody-wants-your-parents-stuff/#7072571724ed
This article is pretty spot on to what we recently experienced. Even "expensive stuff" that my parents carried insurance riders on for years were just not worth much -- unless you were willing to drop them at a consignment dealer and wait months for the right buyer.
There are 6 cousins (3 each) that might inherit from each of them. 4 of them are completely reasonable and are unlikely to try to force a sale. The other 2? Who knows. Hopefully we can buy them out at a fair price if they just want quick cash and won't settle for long term income.
My uncle handles dealing with the farmers and he mails my share of the profits as they come in.
He's taught his son and grandson what they need to know so they can pick up when he can't do it any more. (He's in his 90s.)
So, I guess what I'm saying is that it can work out just great if you're dealing with fair-minded, reasonable people who love one another as opposed to selfish, greedy, foolish, they-are-the-center-of-the-universe kind of people.
My parents, and I as well, love to go to estate sales.
Go to any estate sale on the last day. Stuff is usually 50% off. Look at how much is still there, being sold for pennies on the dollar. Even nice stuff.
My wife and I just got 2 recliners, very good condition, for $500 total. Cost of them new? Over $2,000 EACH. My wife buys kitchen stuff like its going out of style at these things.
My parents, even though they still buy a lot at these things, are also getting rid of stuff quickly. They've basically told us (my brothers and I) that if we want something, tell them, otherwise it is liable to disappear.
My parents, and I as well, love to go to estate sales.
Go to any estate sale on the last day. Stuff is usually 50% off. Look at how much is still there, being sold for pennies on the dollar. Even nice stuff.
My wife and I just got 2 recliners, very good condition, for $500 total. Cost of them new? Over $2,000 EACH. My wife buys kitchen stuff like its going out of style at these things.
My parents, even though they still buy a lot at these things, are also getting rid of stuff quickly. They've basically told us (my brothers and I) that if we want something, tell them, otherwise it is liable to disappear.
And at the end of the estate sale, Salvation Army (or the charity of your choice) will show up and take everything for nothing on the dollar. My parents' house was a truckload.
And wanna know what probably sold for the most overall? The real junk that my aunt tried to throw away before my parents and the company stopped her. Half a bottle of rubbing alcohol. Half a roll of tape. Opened container of Solo cups. Which makes sense, those are the things that people will actually use.
And wanna know what probably sold for the most overall? The real junk that my aunt tried to throw away before my parents and the company stopped her. Half a bottle of rubbing alcohol. Half a roll of tape. Opened container of Solo cups. Which makes sense, those are the things that people will actually use.
Wait, what? That seems difficult to believe, people showing up and bidding, what, 15 cents for half a bottle of rubbing alcohol? I'd think it wouldn't be worth the time.
My parents, and I as well, love to go to estate sales.
Go to any estate sale on the last day. Stuff is usually 50% off. Look at how much is still there, being sold for pennies on the dollar. Even nice stuff.
My wife and I just got 2 recliners, very good condition, for $500 total. Cost of them new? Over $2,000 EACH. My wife buys kitchen stuff like its going out of style at these things.
My parents, even though they still buy a lot at these things, are also getting rid of stuff quickly. They've basically told us (my brothers and I) that if we want something, tell them, otherwise it is liable to disappear.
And at the end of the estate sale, Salvation Army (or the charity of your choice) will show up and take everything for nothing on the dollar. My parents' house was a truckload.
Congrats @TheGrimSqueaker! What a weight off your shoulders! You sometimes wonder how in the world you could ever be possibly related to them or came out of the same uterus.
reviewing these stories, I'm really seeing the argument for taking out enough life insurance that you can provide liquidity to siblings/heirs for buying out each others' stakes in a real estate-type property.
Congrats @TheGrimSqueaker! What a weight off your shoulders! You sometimes wonder how in the world you could ever be possibly related to them or came out of the same uterus.
I was just looking at a birth order book - think Jimmy Carter and his brother Billy (American president and major goof-off.) TGS, are you the older?
Congrats @TheGrimSqueaker! What a weight off your shoulders! You sometimes wonder how in the world you could ever be possibly related to them or came out of the same uterus.
I was just looking at a birth order book - think Jimmy Carter and his brother Billy (American president and major goof-off.) TGS, are you the older?
Yes, by three years, however we were raised quite differently.
Congrats @TheGrimSqueaker! What a weight off your shoulders! You sometimes wonder how in the world you could ever be possibly related to them or came out of the same uterus.
I was just looking at a birth order book - think Jimmy Carter and his brother Billy (American president and major goof-off.) TGS, are you the older?
Yes, by three years, however we were raised quite differently.
Being raised differently is a given. I was the older, my parents learned on me (the experimental model/lab rat/guinea pig) and were much easier on my younger sister. Both my parents were younger kids in their families, I don't think they had a clue about what it is like being the oldest.
Congrats @TheGrimSqueaker! What a weight off your shoulders! You sometimes wonder how in the world you could ever be possibly related to them or came out of the same uterus.
I was just looking at a birth order book - think Jimmy Carter and his brother Billy (American president and major goof-off.) TGS, are you the older?
Yes, by three years, however we were raised quite differently.
Being raised differently is a given. I was the older, my parents learned on me (the experimental model/lab rat/guinea pig) and were much easier on my younger sister. Both my parents were younger kids in their families, I don't think they had a clue about what it is like being the oldest.
There was more to it in our family, it was downright odd in some respects but not something I feel comfortable discussing online since the other people aren't here to refute what I say or to present their own interpretations of events.
Congrats @TheGrimSqueaker! What a weight off your shoulders! You sometimes wonder how in the world you could ever be possibly related to them or came out of the same uterus.
I was just looking at a birth order book - think Jimmy Carter and his brother Billy (American president and major goof-off.) TGS, are you the older?
Yes, by three years, however we were raised quite differently.
Being raised differently is a given. I was the older, my parents learned on me (the experimental model/lab rat/guinea pig) and were much easier on my younger sister. Both my parents were younger kids in their families, I don't think they had a clue about what it is like being the oldest.
There was more to it in our family, it was downright odd in some respects but not something I feel comfortable discussing online since the other people aren't here to refute what I say or to present their own interpretations of events.
No problem, just thought it interesting that you were being cast in the typical oldest child responsible for everything role. And lo and behold, you were the oldest.
reviewing these stories, I'm really seeing the argument for taking out enough life insurance that you can provide liquidity to siblings/heirs for buying out each others' stakes in a real estate-type property.
I guess I'm just not that sentimental. I see absolutely no reason why the property shouldn't be sold off if one person wants to keep it and the others don't want to buy them out.
When the payout came, I took a couple thousand of my half and put it in an account for my DD (Dad's granddaughter) as I knew he would like her to have something from him since she was so young when he died and signed the rest over to my stepmother. My older sister (who has since passed) took the money and ran! Being mustachian made it an easy choice for me as I didn't NEED the money and I know it really helped my stepmother survive after my Dad died.
Many years ago, we had a case at work where an employee has named his long term girl friend as beneficiary of an employer life insurance policy- however HR did not process it properly (did not get the required witness signatures) and the insurance company ruled it invalid and paid out to his siblings (there were several). They all turned the money over to the girlfriend.
reviewing these stories, I'm really seeing the argument for taking out enough life insurance that you can provide liquidity to siblings/heirs for buying out each others' stakes in a real estate-type property.Yep. When my mom and her three siblings inherited my grandpa's farm, one of them wanted ready cash instead. Fortunately, the other three had enough money to partially buy her out, and she was fine with keeping some land - otherwise, there would've been problems with breaking up the farm.
reviewing these stories, I'm really seeing the argument for taking out enough life insurance that you can provide liquidity to siblings/heirs for buying out each others' stakes in a real estate-type property.Yep. When my mom and her three siblings inherited my grandpa's farm, one of them wanted ready cash instead. Fortunately, the other three had enough money to partially buy her out, and she was fine with keeping some land - otherwise, there would've been problems with breaking up the farm.
(As it was, it's now technically divided into three equal sections and one smaller section, but still being managed together, which makes everything a lot easier.)
reviewing these stories, I'm really seeing the argument for taking out enough life insurance that you can provide liquidity to siblings/heirs for buying out each others' stakes in a real estate-type property.Yep. When my mom and her three siblings inherited my grandpa's farm, one of them wanted ready cash instead. Fortunately, the other three had enough money to partially buy her out, and she was fine with keeping some land - otherwise, there would've been problems with breaking up the farm.
(As it was, it's now technically divided into three equal sections and one smaller section, but still being managed together, which makes everything a lot easier.)
Some families use life insurance to balance out a lopsided estate so that no asset has to be divided or owned jointly. "OK, Johnny gets the house, Susie gets the investment property, and DeShawn gets the art collection, movable assets, and bank accounts" doesn't always ensure an equitable split. Insurance can even it out.
... but the burdens of managing them [parents] through end of life may still be significant.
But I can see how having a cranium/rectum confused sibling might make things even worse.
........After what the sister did when her father and aunt died, I can't find it in my heart......
........After what the sister did when her father and aunt died, I can't find it in my heart......Please don't leave us hanging like that. Could you find it in your heart to tell the story?
I loved my Mom very much... at her funeral our cousin came up to me and asked for a specific painting that my Mom had stored in the attic. AT THE FUNERAL...
I can't even remember my response. In the days after the funeral I told my brother what she's said. My brother said she did the same thing to my MOM at her Mother's (my Grandma's) funeral.
I don't care who is in that picture ... she isn't getting it.
Petty... yes I am.
My state levies an inheritance tax on some distant relatives as well as all non-relatives who inherit as a result of a will, joint account, or transfer-on-death designation, but doesn't levy that tax on funds those same people receive as a result of being a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. I have no human dependents, but I still have life insurance to make things more flexible in terms of avoiding the state inheritance tax, both now and in the future. Life insurance is inexpensive at my age, but I will definitely reevaluate that decision when I am older and it becomes more expensive.Aren't they also free from federal tax? This never occurred to me as a way to avoid estate tax/death tax. Interesting.
My state levies an inheritance tax on some distant relatives as well as all non-relatives who inherit as a result of a will, joint account, or transfer-on-death designation, but doesn't levy that tax on funds those same people receive as a result of being a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. I have no human dependents, but I still have life insurance to make things more flexible in terms of avoiding the state inheritance tax, both now and in the future. Life insurance is inexpensive at my age, but I will definitely reevaluate that decision when I am older and it becomes more expensive.Aren't they also free from federal tax? This never occurred to me as a way to avoid estate tax/death tax. Interesting.
My state levies an inheritance tax on some distant relatives as well as all non-relatives who inherit as a result of a will, joint account, or transfer-on-death designation, but doesn't levy that tax on funds those same people receive as a result of being a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. I have no human dependents, but I still have life insurance to make things more flexible in terms of avoiding the state inheritance tax, both now and in the future. Life insurance is inexpensive at my age, but I will definitely reevaluate that decision when I am older and it becomes more expensive.
My state levies an inheritance tax on some distant relatives as well as all non-relatives who inherit as a result of a will, joint account, or transfer-on-death designation, but doesn't levy that tax on funds those same people receive as a result of being a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. I have no human dependents, but I still have life insurance to make things more flexible in terms of avoiding the state inheritance tax, both now and in the future. Life insurance is inexpensive at my age, but I will definitely reevaluate that decision when I am older and it becomes more expensive.I'm confused with how this is carried out on a joint account. How does anyone know what is inherited in a joint account vs what's already yours?
My state levies an inheritance tax on some distant relatives as well as all non-relatives who inherit as a result of a will, joint account, or transfer-on-death designation, but doesn't levy that tax on funds those same people receive as a result of being a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. I have no human dependents, but I still have life insurance to make things more flexible in terms of avoiding the state inheritance tax, both now and in the future. Life insurance is inexpensive at my age, but I will definitely reevaluate that decision when I am older and it becomes more expensive.I'm confused with how this is carried out on a joint account. How does anyone know what is inherited in a joint account vs what's already yours?
For Vanguard accounts, you can call up a special department there and they'll run a report for you that does essentially the same thing. Weirdly, in my state one gets a step-up in the entire basis (not just half of the account's basis) to value as of date of death. I don't know why, but that's what I was told to do when I looked into it.
For Vanguard accounts, you can call up a special department there and they'll run a report for you that does essentially the same thing. Weirdly, in my state one gets a step-up in the entire basis (not just half of the account's basis) to value as of date of death. I don't know why, but that's what I was told to do when I looked into it.
So are you saying if I create a joint account that is a ratio of a million to 1, and then the $1 dies, the million gets stepped up in cost basis? I smell loophole :)
What is your state?
Just an uplifting inheritance story (sarc) to bump this thread:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367858/Evil-son-50-burnt-sister-alive-jailed-27-years.html
Protostache: I guess "free" goes a long, long way for some people. I've seen some people get unreasonably giddy about "free". Someone ought to remind BIL point blank that this sale is of FIL's things to fund the FIL's care and not to serve as a windfall for someone else. BIL may have zero social awareness beyond his own greed.
You could host the cousins in the future so that your kids have a relationship with their cousins. Try to minimize time with the rest of the flawed family.
Protostache: I guess "free" goes a long, long way for some people. I've seen some people get unreasonably giddy about "free". Someone ought to remind BIL point blank that this sale is of FIL's things to fund the FIL's care and not to serve as a windfall for someone else. BIL may have zero social awareness beyond his own greed.
You could host the cousins in the future so that your kids have a relationship with their cousins. Try to minimize time with the rest of the flawed family.
BIL doesn't care. My wife has repeatedly pointed out that the money goes to FIL's care, but his retort (which makes a sick kind of sense) is that Medicaid is going to kick in at some point anyway so any money we raise this way doesn't matter and nobody else really wants much of anything so he should just get to take it all.
A sick little addendum: turns out BIL also asked the neighbor about taking back the very nice snowblower FIL gifted to him. Neighbor came around yesterday when BIL wasn't there and told us all about it, just to make sure it was still his! We wouldn't have ever known if the neighbor hadn't said anything.
BIL doesn't care. My wife has repeatedly pointed out that the money goes to FIL's care, but his retort (which makes a sick kind of sense) is that Medicaid is going to kick in at some point anyway so any money we raise this way doesn't matter and nobody else really wants much of anything so he should just get to take it all.
Protostache: I guess "free" goes a long, long way for some people. I've seen some people get unreasonably giddy about "free". Someone ought to remind BIL point blank that this sale is of FIL's things to fund the FIL's care and not to serve as a windfall for someone else. BIL may have zero social awareness beyond his own greed.
You could host the cousins in the future so that your kids have a relationship with their cousins. Try to minimize time with the rest of the flawed family.
BIL doesn't care. My wife has repeatedly pointed out that the money goes to FIL's care, but his retort (which makes a sick kind of sense) is that Medicaid is going to kick in at some point anyway so any money we raise this way doesn't matter and nobody else really wants much of anything so he should just get to take it all.
A sick little addendum: turns out BIL also asked the neighbor about taking back the very nice snowblower FIL gifted to him. Neighbor came around yesterday when BIL wasn't there and told us all about it, just to make sure it was still his! We wouldn't have ever known if the neighbor hadn't said anything.
Sorry for your situation re BIL. Is your family and the other siblings families estates properly setup to defend from BIL?
If you are sick and tired of dealing with BIL and you are the executor, call the police and have him arrested for burglary.
I wrote a will today. Well, a draft. I'm going to sit on it for a while and check I haven't missed anything out. But I just wanted to say how much this thread had helped! It's a simple will, but I've put in what happens if we have children, if any of them are under eighteen, if any of them have died and have a surviving spouse or children (including children adopted under the age of sixteen!)... And I've kept it simple: sell everything and split the money. If anyone wants to buy anything, it's at full market value and counts as part of their share. If more than one person is interested in something, they have six months to come to an agreement about who it is or it gets sold by a third party and the money divided.
I would humbly suggest running your will past an estate attorney in your jurisdiction prior to signing it. If they're reviewing what you've already written it shouldn't cost a whole lot and you'll have more confidence that it won't be contested for some weird technical drafting error when the time comes.
I would humbly suggest running your will past an estate attorney in your jurisdiction prior to signing it. If they're reviewing what you've already written it shouldn't cost a whole lot and you'll have more confidence that it won't be contested for some weird technical drafting error when the time comes.
Though just a warning, a lot of attorneys will charge more for reviewing your will than doing their own. They have already put time into figuring out what boilerplate and contingencies they need in their own document for that state, and can delegate most of the "fill in the blank" stuff to their paralegals once they interview you. If they have to read YOUR document, they actually have to see if it covers everything their's does from scratch. And as you say, there can be state specific things. Georgia, for example, requires that the witness to the will show up in court to testify that they witnessed it UNLESS there is a specific statement waiving that in the will. Good luck tracking someone down 20 years after they witnessed your will. . .
I wrote a will today. Well, a draft. I'm going to sit on it for a while and check I haven't missed anything out. But I just wanted to say how much this thread had helped! It's a simple will, but I've put in what happens if we have children, if any of them are under eighteen, if any of them have died and have a surviving spouse or children (including children adopted under the age of sixteen!)... And I've kept it simple: sell everything and split the money. If anyone wants to buy anything, it's at full market value and counts as part of their share. If more than one person is interested in something, they have six months to come to an agreement about who it is or it gets sold by a third party and the money divided.Your distribution scheme sounds like mine did. Then someone pointed out that forced sale under my estate rather than letting property go to an heir could cost a lot in stepped-up cost basis.
I wrote a will today. Well, a draft. I'm going to sit on it for a while and check I haven't missed anything out. But I just wanted to say how much this thread had helped! It's a simple will, but I've put in what happens if we have children, if any of them are under eighteen, if any of them have died and have a surviving spouse or children (including children adopted under the age of sixteen!)... And I've kept it simple: sell everything and split the money. If anyone wants to buy anything, it's at full market value and counts as part of their share. If more than one person is interested in something, they have six months to come to an agreement about who it is or it gets sold by a third party and the money divided.I agree, having somethIng in place is much better than having nothing.
We are still slagging though the mechanics of "populating our trust" and it taught me to c solid aye accounts. We have too many fooking financial instruments. Ugh.
Your distribution scheme sounds like mine did. Then someone pointed out that forced sale under my estate rather than letting property go to an heir could cost a lot in stepped-up cost basis.
My attorney pointed out a few things that made things much simpler for me:
1. I'm young and healthy. I'm likely to write many more wills before I die. So stop trying to account for every contingency, and just get on with it. (don't try to figure out who gets what IF I have children or if A, B, and D, but not C predecease me.)
2. I trust the person(s) I've named as executor. Let them figure out whether to sell my personal property when the time comes.
This advice made me stop worrying and let me just get on with things. I'm covered. My heirs are covered. Is it perfect? No, but it's good enough and it's done.
Latest in our inheritance drama ... 5 children inherited 20% each of a 200 acre farm .. some children (not this one) wanted to sell the farm ... finally strong-armed this one into selling WHILE I AM OUT OF THE FREAKING COUNTRY ... AND put the closing date 2 days after I come back so I have to go on the day I get back to Canada to pick up the rocks I want as well as anything else that I have fond memories of (they said there is only "junk" left there ...) They have no good memories of the place obviously.
Anyways ... now it is the drama with monies left in our joint account where the farmers $10,000/year rent went - one brother has decided it needs to stay there until sometime in August ... argh ... I just want this all done. Here comes capital gains :(
Sorry about the rant ... just pissy about this whole thing and sad.
Sweetlife, your situation sounds like a mess. Hang in there!
Of course, when you said "rocks I want", I just assumed you have some extremely valuable jewelry somewhere on that farm.
Sweetlife, your situation sounds like a mess. Hang in there!
Of course, when you said "rocks I want", I just assumed you have some extremely valuable jewelry somewhere on that farm.
I assumed cool looking pieces of granite or marble or whatever.
Protostache: I guess "free" goes a long, long way for some people. I've seen some people get unreasonably giddy about "free". Someone ought to remind BIL point blank that this sale is of FIL's things to fund the FIL's care and not to serve as a windfall for someone else. BIL may have zero social awareness beyond his own greed.
You could host the cousins in the future so that your kids have a relationship with their cousins. Try to minimize time with the rest of the flawed family.
BIL doesn't care. My wife has repeatedly pointed out that the money goes to FIL's care, but his retort (which makes a sick kind of sense) is that Medicaid is going to kick in at some point anyway so any money we raise this way doesn't matter and nobody else really wants much of anything so he should just get to take it all.
A sick little addendum: turns out BIL also asked the neighbor about taking back the very nice snowblower FIL gifted to him. Neighbor came around yesterday when BIL wasn't there and told us all about it, just to make sure it was still his! We wouldn't have ever known if the neighbor hadn't said anything.
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.
You can frame art cheaply by measuring the print (Kincades will be a standard size, never a danger about that) and going to a hobby shop such as Michael's. They have pre-made frames and matting to fit just about any standard picture size. I wouldn't spring for custom framing for anything but an original or a very nice piece of textile art that requires UV protection.
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.
I friend with even basic woodworking tools could pretty easily make a decent frame for you, so you'd only need someone to cut a piece of glass, and then whatever mat you might want (which you can DIY with a cheap mat cutter). Depending on your tastes, the frame could likely be made with molding purchased from home depot, or if you wanted something fancier you could buy from a frame shop or online.Or get a standard size frame that is bigger than the non-standard size painting/photo you want framed. Buy a nice black or white (depending on the art) sheet of paper and us that as a background on which you put the painting/photo. Voila, your art is being displayed in a nice manner with the use of a cheap standard frame.
I had never done woodworking of any kind before, and with about 15 minutes of instruction (and access to a wood working shop, which sadly I no longer have), I was able to make frames, cut glass, and mount everything and it looks just as good as whatever the kid at Michael's who probably had not more more training than my 15 minutes could do.
I loved my Mom very much... at her funeral our cousin came up to me and asked for a specific painting that my Mom had stored in the attic. AT THE FUNERAL...
I can't even remember my response. In the days after the funeral I told my brother what she's said. My brother said she did the same thing to my MOM at her Mother's (my Grandma's) funeral.
I don't care who is in that picture ... she isn't getting it.
Petty... yes I am.
I loved my Mom very much... at her funeral our cousin came up to me and asked for a specific painting that my Mom had stored in the attic. AT THE FUNERAL...
I can't even remember my response. In the days after the funeral I told my brother what she's said. My brother said she did the same thing to my MOM at her Mother's (my Grandma's) funeral.
I don't care who is in that picture ... she isn't getting it.
Petty... yes I am.
I had a bit to catch up on in this thread but this is very familiar!
A lady came up to me at my grandfather-in-law's funeral and started talking about a certain picture from the GIL's house.
"I know he would want me to have it," she said.
Pffft, nope.
And who lays claim to items when the deceased's spouse is still alive and living in the family home? The estate won't be divided until we lose GMIL, but she's still going strong at 92.
Sweetlife, your situation sounds like a mess. Hang in there!
Of course, when you said "rocks I want", I just assumed you have some extremely valuable jewelry somewhere on that farm.
Sweetlife, your situation sounds like a mess. Hang in there!
Of course, when you said "rocks I want", I just assumed you have some extremely valuable jewelry somewhere on that farm.
I assumed cool looking pieces of granite or marble or whatever.
My wife is a rock hound. I assumed very rock-looking rocks. But rock-looking rocks that had emotional significance. "The big rock by the barn" or "the slightly sparkly rock by the front door of the house I grew up in."
I loved my Mom very much... at her funeral our cousin came up to me and asked for a specific painting that my Mom had stored in the attic. AT THE FUNERAL...
I can't even remember my response. In the days after the funeral I told my brother what she's said. My brother said she did the same thing to my MOM at her Mother's (my Grandma's) funeral.
I don't care who is in that picture ... she isn't getting it.
Petty... yes I am.
I had a bit to catch up on in this thread but this is very familiar!
A lady came up to me at my grandfather-in-law's funeral and started talking about a certain picture from the GIL's house.
"I know he would want me to have it," she said.
Pffft, nope.
And who lays claim to items when the deceased's spouse is still alive and living in the family home? The estate won't be divided until we lose GMIL, but she's still going strong at 92.
It's unfortunate I wasn't present, I'd have ejected her from the funeral on her ass.[/i]
The Virginia law is clear that ex-spouses may not inherit anything.It's pretty common that divorce ends the legal relationship so it also ends any property or legal interests that are contingent on that legal relationship.
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title20/chapter6/section20-11
This Virginia law was new information for me.
It would be important to know for anyone living in Virginia who thought that an ex-spouses life insurance policy would help them with family expenses after death.
The Virginia law is clear that ex-spouses may not inherit anything.It's pretty common that divorce ends the legal relationship so it also ends any property or legal interests that are contingent on that legal relationship.
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title20/chapter6/section20-11
This Virginia law was new information for me.
It would be important to know for anyone living in Virginia who thought that an ex-spouses life insurance policy would help them with family expenses after death.
I don't think there would be anything which would prevent an ex spouse from reinstating those rights after the divorce by making a new will or making a new nomination under an insurance policy stating the person X, who just happens to be their ex, is the beneficiary.
The Virginia law is clear that ex-spouses may not inherit anything.It's pretty common that divorce ends the legal relationship so it also ends any property or legal interests that are contingent on that legal relationship.
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title20/chapter6/section20-11
This Virginia law was new information for me.
It would be important to know for anyone living in Virginia who thought that an ex-spouses life insurance policy would help them with family expenses after death.
I don't think there would be anything which would prevent an ex spouse from reinstating those rights after the divorce by making a new will or making a new nomination under an insurance policy stating the person X, who just happens to be their ex, is the beneficiary.
Turns out the only reason the whole family is coming is so they could bring two cars to haul away more stuff. Stuff that should be sold at auction for FIL's benefit. BIL also lied to my wife about my sister in law telling him it was ok. SIL is just as surprised and appalled as my wife.
I love that: hire a third party, hand all the children a check.
Unfortunately, people tend to feel strangely about houses. I hear a lot of people who call in (to Dave Ramsey, for example) wanting to save the family home/farm and keep it in the family.
I love that: hire a third party, hand all the children a check.
Unfortunately, people tend to feel strangely about houses. I hear a lot of people who call in (to Dave Ramsey, for example) wanting to save the family home/farm and keep it in the family.
This can be an interesting dumpster fire to watch. I know a couple in their early seventies, that live in voluntary poverty, barely squeaking by, simply because they refuse to give up the family farm. They live in an old, worn out RV, spending winters in a very low cost location in the south, and summers close to home, volunteering in a location where they get a free campsite, and utilities paid. They have a son who occupies the farmhouse, and covers expenses on the house, but doesn't come close to paying market rental rates for the place. The son has no interest in farming, the other kids feel the same, and have zero interest in the place. The old guy splits the costs,losses and theoretical profit with another local farmer who actually works the ground. One recent year, the old guy lost thousands after a bad crop.
This could all end tomorrow and the couple could be living in a nice, paid off, home, with plenty of money to live their lives out, but doing so would involve selling sacred ground. The second the old guy dies, his wife will dump it. If they both spent the next ten-twenty years suffering in voluntary poverty, and pass, the kids will have it on the market before the grass sprouts on mom and dad's cemetery plots.
I love that: hire a third party, hand all the children a check.
Unfortunately, people tend to feel strangely about houses. I hear a lot of people who call in (to Dave Ramsey, for example) wanting to save the family home/farm and keep it in the family.
This can be an interesting dumpster fire to watch. I know a couple in their early seventies, that live in voluntary poverty, barely squeaking by, simply because they refuse to give up the family farm. They live in an old, worn out RV, spending winters in a very low cost location in the south, and summers close to home, volunteering in a location where they get a free campsite, and utilities paid. They have a son who occupies the farmhouse, and covers expenses on the house, but doesn't come close to paying market rental rates for the place. The son has no interest in farming, the other kids feel the same, and have zero interest in the place. The old guy splits the costs,losses and theoretical profit with another local farmer who actually works the ground. One recent year, the old guy lost thousands after a bad crop.
This could all end tomorrow and the couple could be living in a nice, paid off, home, with plenty of money to live their lives out, but doing so would involve selling sacred ground. The second the old guy dies, his wife will dump it. If they both spent the next ten-twenty years suffering in voluntary poverty, and pass, the kids will have it on the market before the grass sprouts on mom and dad's cemetery plots.
Good for them. They should sell. It sounds like the whole arrangement is terrible for everyone except the son living there.
My grandparents were farmers. I suspect they were good ones as they (a) made it thru the depression with the farm still in their hands and (b) were always on the lookout for more farmland (which implies a surplus of cash). My parents and my uncle invested in additional farmland with my grandparents way back when.I wonder if the same is not true of ranchers...
My uncle, who has been managing the farm remotely (the land is rented out to another family that actually does the farm work), explained that good farmland only comes on the market once a century, so if you want to buy it, you buy it when it's available. (Or wait another 3 generations.)
My grandparents were farmers. I suspect they were good ones as they (a) made it thru the depression with the farm still in their hands and (b) were always on the lookout for more farmland (which implies a surplus of cash). My parents and my uncle invested in additional farmland with my grandparents way back when.I wonder if the same is not true of ranchers...
My uncle, who has been managing the farm remotely (the land is rented out to another family that actually does the farm work), explained that good farmland only comes on the market once a century, so if you want to buy it, you buy it when it's available. (Or wait another 3 generations.)
I live in NE Illinois, at the edge of the suburbs, so lots of farmland still around. And lots of large tracts for sale. Maybe it's only in certain areas that land is rarely sold?
I live in NE Illinois, at the edge of the suburbs, so lots of farmland still around. And lots of large tracts for sale. Maybe it's only in certain areas that land is rarely sold?
Anyone want some land in central NC? It was owned by my DH's great aunt and uncle (one child, who died with no heirs a year ago February). There are a couple dozen distant relatives who now "own" it, and I'm sure they'd all like to find a buyer. Pine trees and not much else!
Not all land is worth holding, sadly.
...
A side note I have to tell.
I remember as a kid him winning a Remington 1100 shotgun in a raffle in 1973. I bet that gun hadn't been fired more than 50 shells thru it. After he passed I was cleaning out his belongings and actually found the winning ticket that he presented to claim the prize!
I have it with the gun in a case. Hopefully this will be passed on for generations.
My uncle inherited my grandfather's guns when he passed, but my uncle is anti-gun, and refused to even pick them up. My dad and uncle worked out a deal where I would sell them and keep 10% commission. One was my grandmother's father's shotgun, that had been used regularly. I have a black and white photo of him with it and his dog. One might have been my grandfather's father's gun, also used regularly, but I'm not sure if it truly has family history. One has WWII history, and a possible family connection, but again I don't have the details. I used my commission to get these, as they were fairly well used, they wouldn't have sold for nearly as much as the others....
A side note I have to tell.
I remember as a kid him winning a Remington 1100 shotgun in a raffle in 1973. I bet that gun hadn't been fired more than 50 shells thru it. After he passed I was cleaning out his belongings and actually found the winning ticket that he presented to claim the prize!
I have it with the gun in a case. Hopefully this will be passed on for generations.
I write stories about either the people I got the gun from, or notable hunts it was on, and put them under the foam in the dedicated gun case for that rifle. I learned this from a friend who brokered me the sale of an Anschutz that had been a favorite of CL, who burst upon the competition scene in our state, won in many disciplines, and died suddenly and young in a construction accident. His tale goes with his rifle.
This thread deserves a bump, and I have one that I heard at work:Yeah, executors can charge for their services, even family, but it is up to a limit, and needs to be "reasonable" to get the max allowed. For example:
Grandma of coworker dies. Coworker's uncle is one of the co-executors. Coworker stands to inherit 25% of the proceeds from grandma's house. Two years later, uncle sends a bill to the inheritors for $30k, claiming the work he put into the house increased the home's value from $150k to $230k (home sold for $210k). Said work was performed without consultation with or permission from the inheritors. As it turns out, uncle actually owes the estate $15k (borrowed when he was divorced) and owes someone else in the family $25k.
Coworker was smart, called an estate attorney. Attorney told him to ignore the bill.
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.
The funny part of dealing with that place is that you can indeed get really nice, ready to use standard frame/glass/mat combinations really cheap. Asking them to do custom work however, can be shocking. I needed to do a 17"x 23" antique blueprint. I picked a nice looking cheap frame that was actually a faux wood finish on fiberboard. I had a coupon with a huge discount at 65% off. By the time the clerk got done adding, she quoted $330+ for a custom frame job. This was AFTER the discounts. So they were actually pricing the work at over a grand. I laughed and asked if she was serious? I then bought a very similar frame/glass/mat from their stock supply for $15. I spent another $15 on a mat cutter from Amazon, and ended up with a very nice piece of art for $30, or less than 3% of their bogus quote (pre-discount)
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.
I've heard of people buying prints as wall art convinced that these will also function as small investments. After 20 or so years though some of these prints have sun damage. Its just ink on heavy paper after all.
I've seen a lot of people get jealous when someone they know receives an inheritance. Does that count as drama?if their envy leads them to do something stupid or exhibit bad manners, then sure!
My colleague's husband's parents died and left about $80,000 to each of their three children.
My colleague and her husband are very well off. They each work a day or two a week for fun but they're financially independent, very comfortable, live in a $6 million house, travel non-stop.
The husband decided to give his $80,000 to his older, out-of-work, never married sister who has been struggling a bit to make ends meet.
My colleague complained bitterly about him "throwing money away", saying if he didn't want it he should have given it to their adult daughters.
I've posted about their entitled daughters in other threads - they want for nothing. (One daughter is 25 and working full-time, parents bought her a car and give her a "stipend" of $250 a week.)
My colleague saw this as a slight against her family, instead of a generous act from her husband.
I've posted about their entitled daughters in other threads - they want for nothing. (One daughter is 25 and working full-time, parents bought her a car and give her a "stipend" of $250 a week.)
Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago. She's 97. Still living. AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt. That uncle? Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.
I've posted about their entitled daughters in other threads - they want for nothing. (One daughter is 25 and working full-time, parents bought her a car and give her a "stipend" of $250 a week.)
I'll have to search for your other threads. By itself, this EOC doesn't seem extreme for a family that could be worth $10-$30 million.
I've seen a lot of people get jealous when someone they know receives an inheritance. Does that count as drama?if their envy leads them to do something stupid or exhibit bad manners, then sure!
It goes to his wife if he leaves a will and specifies that it does. Or if everything is jointly owned in writing (cars, real estate, bank accounts, etc.) or lists her as beneficiary.
But in at least some U.S. states, if a person dies intestate, children from former spouses/partners are legally entitled to part of the estate.
(Obviously not the case in your story - just pointing this out for clarification. Not sure if it's common knowledge.)
It goes to his wife if he leaves a will and specifies that it does. Or if everything is jointly owned in writing (cars, real estate, bank accounts, etc.) or lists her as beneficiary.
But in at least some U.S. states, if a person dies intestate, children from former spouses/partners are legally entitled to part of the estate.
(Obviously not the case in your story - just pointing this out for clarification. Not sure if it's common knowledge.)
This is the case with my family right now. Grandma had two kids from her first marriage and one from her second. She died intestate a few years ago. Grandpa has dementia. (The children of all three consider him Grandpa, as he's the only one they've known.) Child #3 has a major persecution complex and thinks that since he's his dad's only child, everything goes to him. He's wrong; legally children #1 and #2 should have inherited something directly when their mother died, but they're doing fine financially and don't want to fight over the money. #3 insists on interpreting this as "they don't care about me or my dad". It's a crazy mess.
Also, #3 got mad at grandchildren for going into the (now abandoned) house to try to retrieve photos and mementos before everything was destroyed through neglect.
It goes to his wife if he leaves a will and specifies that it does. Or if everything is jointly owned in writing (cars, real estate, bank accounts, etc.) or lists her as beneficiary.
But in at least some U.S. states, if a person dies intestate, children from former spouses/partners are legally entitled to part of the estate.
(Obviously not the case in your story - just pointing this out for clarification. Not sure if it's common knowledge.)
This is the case with my family right now. Grandma had two kids from her first marriage and one from her second. She died intestate a few years ago. Grandpa has dementia. (The children of all three consider him Grandpa, as he's the only one they've known.) Child #3 has a major persecution complex and thinks that since he's his dad's only child, everything goes to him. He's wrong; legally children #1 and #2 should have inherited something directly when their mother died, but they're doing fine financially and don't want to fight over the money. #3 insists on interpreting this as "they don't care about me or my dad". It's a crazy mess.
Also, #3 got mad at grandchildren for going into the (now abandoned) house to try to retrieve photos and mementos before everything was destroyed through neglect.
It goes to his wife if he leaves a will and specifies that it does. Or if everything is jointly owned in writing (cars, real estate, bank accounts, etc.) or lists her as beneficiary.
But in at least some U.S. states, if a person dies intestate, children from former spouses/partners are legally entitled to part of the estate.
(Obviously not the case in your story - just pointing this out for clarification. Not sure if it's common knowledge.)
This is the case with my family right now. Grandma had two kids from her first marriage and one from her second. She died intestate a few years ago. Grandpa has dementia. (The children of all three consider him Grandpa, as he's the only one they've known.) Child #3 has a major persecution complex and thinks that since he's his dad's only child, everything goes to him. He's wrong; legally children #1 and #2 should have inherited something directly when their mother died, but they're doing fine financially and don't want to fight over the money. #3 insists on interpreting this as "they don't care about me or my dad". It's a crazy mess.
Also, #3 got mad at grandchildren for going into the (now abandoned) house to try to retrieve photos and mementos before everything was destroyed through neglect.
State dependent, if you die intestate, then often there is a cap where the first $x goes to the surviving spouse, and the remainder is split between the kids... If Grandma did not have a lot of assets left in the estate (e.g., a home was jointly owned and other accounts were designated beneficiary to grandpa or also joint), there may actually be no money for kids 1,2,3 from her death. Inheritance upon Grandpa's death would depend on whether kids 1 and 2 were recognized (adopted) by him before he became mentally reduced, (or in a will).
This is the case with my family right now. Grandma had two kids from her first marriage and one from her second. She died intestate a few years ago. Grandpa has dementia. (The children of all three consider him Grandpa, as he's the only one they've known.) Child #3 has a major persecution complex and thinks that since he's his dad's only child, everything goes to him. He's wrong; legally children #1 and #2 should have inherited something directly when their mother died, but they're doing fine financially and don't want to fight over the money. #3 insists on interpreting this as "they don't care about me or my dad". It's a crazy mess.
Also, #3 got mad at grandchildren for going into the (now abandoned) house to try to retrieve photos and mementos before everything was destroyed through neglect.
State dependent, if you die intestate, then often there is a cap where the first $x goes to the surviving spouse, and the remainder is split between the kids... If Grandma did not have a lot of assets left in the estate (e.g., a home was jointly owned and other accounts were designated beneficiary to grandpa or also joint), there may actually be no money for kids 1,2,3 from her death. Inheritance upon Grandpa's death would depend on whether kids 1 and 2 were recognized (adopted) by him before he became mentally reduced, (or in a will).
Depending on the timing and location, remarrying can indeed disinherit your first set of children unless you take intentional steps to make sure the surviving spouse doesn't take everything. Family customs often adapt to the local laws. For example, remarriage was historically rare in my family. My grandparents' generation never remarried after the death of a husband or wife. But it was customary for elderly people to have a boyfriend or girlfriend after the traditional mourning period was over. Nobody said a damn thing negative about my widowed grandmother's special friend, for example, although obviously marriage was out of the question.
Depending on the timing and location, remarrying can indeed disinherit your first set of children unless you take intentional steps to make sure the surviving spouse doesn't take everything. Family customs often adapt to the local laws. For example, remarriage was historically rare in my family. My grandparents' generation never remarried after the death of a husband or wife. But it was customary for elderly people to have a boyfriend or girlfriend after the traditional mourning period was over. Nobody said a damn thing negative about my widowed grandmother's special friend, for example, although obviously marriage was out of the question.
This is also true. On a completely different side of the family is a great-grandma who was married twice (once divorced, once widowed), and for the last ~10 years of her life her "special friend" was her sister's widower. He had a heart attack at her house at 3am one time. The best part was how she would rail against the immorality of the younger generations for living together before marriage.
But there's also the grandpa who has been with his second wife for more than 30 years; they both had grown children when they married and they've deliberately kept completely separate finances and detailed wills so that neither will disinherit their children.
Depending on the timing and location, remarrying can indeed disinherit your first set of children unless you take intentional steps to make sure the surviving spouse doesn't take everything. Family customs often adapt to the local laws. For example, remarriage was historically rare in my family. My grandparents' generation never remarried after the death of a husband or wife. But it was customary for elderly people to have a boyfriend or girlfriend after the traditional mourning period was over. Nobody said a damn thing negative about my widowed grandmother's special friend, for example, although obviously marriage was out of the question.
This is also true. On a completely different side of the family is a great-grandma who was married twice (once divorced, once widowed), and for the last ~10 years of her life her "special friend" was her sister's widower. He had a heart attack at her house at 3am one time. The best part was how she would rail against the immorality of the younger generations for living together before marriage.
But there's also the grandpa who has been with his second wife for more than 30 years; they both had grown children when they married and they've deliberately kept completely separate finances and detailed wills so that neither will disinherit their children.
The moral difference, for my grandma and perhaps also your great-grandma, was this: she and her special friend were physically incapable of having children together and had presumably done their duty by their own children a long time ago. Indeed, by foregoing marriage she was doing a favor to her kids and heirs. An unmarried young couple living together, however, was doing something radically different. They were creating a risk to everyone in the young woman's family, which was a Bad Thing To Be Avoided.
With no such thing as reliable birth control, two young adults living together was a pregnancy waiting to happen. Should a child be born, he or she would have no right to any of the father's assets, having been born outside marriage. Indeed, since there was no such thing as a reliable paternity test he could always deny the baby was his. All the debt related to medical care or child care accrued to the mother of the child, not the father. The same went for responsibility. Instead of continuing her education, running her own business, or earning an income the young woman would be saddled with the responsibility of caring for the baby. Her other responsibilities would generally devolve onto other people in her family, consuming their time and resources to pay for necessities both for the baby and for what could have been a productive adult. After seeing a few young lives ruined because an older sister just had to crank out a baby, the community got pretty resentful pretty fast. ("Sorry, Joe, we had to spend your college money on Mary's baby"... "Sorry, Jane, you can't have a part-time job, or take an after-school enrichment class, you've got to babysit Mary's kid"... "Leave that schoolbook alone, can't you hear the baby's crying?")
My take on it is that a lot of the censure for specific behaviors came less from any social, moral, or religious categorical imperative than from the risks associated with the behaviors. The risks in this case came from biology, technology, and the ways the laws were written. As those changed, the risks were greatly reduced to the point where a teen pregnancy (for example) isn't a danger to everyone in sight. Accordingly, many families adapted until the early single pregnancies became the norm, and marriage is what became rare.
Depending on the timing and location, remarrying can indeed disinherit your first set of children unless you take intentional steps to make sure the surviving spouse doesn't take everything. Family customs often adapt to the local laws. For example, remarriage was historically rare in my family. My grandparents' generation never remarried after the death of a husband or wife. But it was customary for elderly people to have a boyfriend or girlfriend after the traditional mourning period was over. Nobody said a damn thing negative about my widowed grandmother's special friend, for example, although obviously marriage was out of the question.
This is also true. On a completely different side of the family is a great-grandma who was married twice (once divorced, once widowed), and for the last ~10 years of her life her "special friend" was her sister's widower. He had a heart attack at her house at 3am one time. The best part was how she would rail against the immorality of the younger generations for living together before marriage.
But there's also the grandpa who has been with his second wife for more than 30 years; they both had grown children when they married and they've deliberately kept completely separate finances and detailed wills so that neither will disinherit their children.
The moral difference, for my grandma and perhaps also your great-grandma, was this: she and her special friend were physically incapable of having children together and had presumably done their duty by their own children a long time ago. Indeed, by foregoing marriage she was doing a favor to her kids and heirs. An unmarried young couple living together, however, was doing something radically different. They were creating a risk to everyone in the young woman's family, which was a Bad Thing To Be Avoided.
With no such thing as reliable birth control, two young adults living together was a pregnancy waiting to happen. Should a child be born, he or she would have no right to any of the father's assets, having been born outside marriage. Indeed, since there was no such thing as a reliable paternity test he could always deny the baby was his. All the debt related to medical care or child care accrued to the mother of the child, not the father. The same went for responsibility. Instead of continuing her education, running her own business, or earning an income the young woman would be saddled with the responsibility of caring for the baby. Her other responsibilities would generally devolve onto other people in her family, consuming their time and resources to pay for necessities both for the baby and for what could have been a productive adult. After seeing a few young lives ruined because an older sister just had to crank out a baby, the community got pretty resentful pretty fast. ("Sorry, Joe, we had to spend your college money on Mary's baby"... "Sorry, Jane, you can't have a part-time job, or take an after-school enrichment class, you've got to babysit Mary's kid"... "Leave that schoolbook alone, can't you hear the baby's crying?")
My take on it is that a lot of the censure for specific behaviors came less from any social, moral, or religious categorical imperative than from the risks associated with the behaviors. The risks in this case came from biology, technology, and the ways the laws were written. As those changed, the risks were greatly reduced to the point where a teen pregnancy (for example) isn't a danger to everyone in sight. Accordingly, many families adapted until the early single pregnancies became the norm, and marriage is what became rare.
TGS,
your thoughtful post leaves out one more consequence of the teen pregnancy: reduced value on the marriage market of the unwed mother. If your goal is to capture the thinking of 1940's society (when this grandmother would have been indoctrinated into sexual morality), I think that's important.
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.
I've heard of people buying prints as wall art convinced that these will also function as small investments. After 20 or so years though some of these prints have sun damage. Its just ink on heavy paper after all.
Buying art as an investment requires a different approach. You need to buy only art that stands a chance of going up in value, you have to make sure that you'll be able to sell it again which requires that you keep proof of the art's provenance, and you need to ensure the art stays in the same condition it was in when you bought it. Miss even one of these steps, and you've bought the use of a decoration that has aesthetic value but nothing more.
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.
I've heard of people buying prints as wall art convinced that these will also function as small investments. After 20 or so years though some of these prints have sun damage. Its just ink on heavy paper after all.
Buying art as an investment requires a different approach. You need to buy only art that stands a chance of going up in value, you have to make sure that you'll be able to sell it again which requires that you keep proof of the art's provenance, and you need to ensure the art stays in the same condition it was in when you bought it. Miss even one of these steps, and you've bought the use of a decoration that has aesthetic value but nothing more.
Ah yes, "investment" art. My ILs used to travel a lot, and they loved to buy art when they traveled. That's great--their prerogative, and I think they enjoy the things that they have bought. Unfortunately, they also love to brag about how much all of this stuff is going to be worth for my kids. Stuff like spectacularly expensive rugs which their dog has wrecked, ceramics of dubious origin, and some oil paintings that are "guaranteed" to go up in value. FIL likes to point out how one of the paintings is going to be my kid's college fund. Said painting sits inches above the buffet where they pile wine, beer, and food during family get-togethers. We smile and nod and continue investing in the kid's 529.
I have acquaintances who believe that their paintings are a valuable part of their kids' inheritance too. They are Thomas Kincaide prints. So not only nearly worthless, but also ugly.
Ah yes, "investment" art. My ILs used to travel a lot, and they loved to buy art when they traveled. That's great--their prerogative, and I think they enjoy the things that they have bought. Unfortunately, they also love to brag about how much all of this stuff is going to be worth for my kids. Stuff like spectacularly expensive rugs which their dog has wrecked, ceramics of dubious origin, and some oil paintings that are "guaranteed" to go up in value. FIL likes to point out how one of the paintings is going to be my kid's college fund. Said painting sits inches above the buffet where they pile wine, beer, and food during family get-togethers. We smile and nod and continue investing in the kid's 529.
Ah yes, "investment" art. My ILs used to travel a lot, and they loved to buy art when they traveled. That's great--their prerogative, and I think they enjoy the things that they have bought. Unfortunately, they also love to brag about how much all of this stuff is going to be worth for my kids. Stuff like spectacularly expensive rugs which their dog has wrecked, ceramics of dubious origin, and some oil paintings that are "guaranteed" to go up in value. FIL likes to point out how one of the paintings is going to be my kid's college fund. Said painting sits inches above the buffet where they pile wine, beer, and food during family get-togethers. We smile and nod and continue investing in the kid's 529.
Years ago, in-laws went on an artwork buying spree and bought various paintings and sculptures. They bragged that some of these pieces cost 10K or more but are a "great investment" and will be worth "a lot of money". Who really knows, but having been in the local gallery scene, DH really doubts it as he found markups to be totally insane and this was around the time his folks bought this stuff. These items were supposed to fund the grandkids' college but that never materialized since
one grandkid did not go and the other funded it via other means.
But, they insist, these are still worth money!!! Now we will inherit them eventually and that will fund our retirement! We just continue to fund our retirement as per usual but SIL has totally bought into this idea that they are worth something but then again, the she thinks everything is worth money, down to the $10 Hallmark ornaments she gives at Christmas.
Years ago, in-laws went on an artwork buying spree and bought various paintings and sculptures. They bragged that some of these pieces cost 10K or more but are a "great investment" and will be worth "a lot of money". Who really knows, but having been in the local gallery scene, DH really doubts it as he found markups to be totally insane and this was around the time his folks bought this stuff. These items were supposed to fund the grandkids' college but that never materialized since
one grandkid did not go and the other funded it via other means.
But, they insist, these are still worth money!!! Now we will inherit them eventually and that will fund our retirement! We just continue to fund our retirement as per usual but SIL has totally bought into this idea that they are worth something but then again, the she thinks everything is worth money, down to the $10 Hallmark ornaments she gives at Christmas.
I don't know much about art, but I'd say those are only worth money, if you can find a real buyer for them. Who will pay what they are worth. And that can be the tricky part.
All kinds of "stuff" in general is going way down in value. I don't see the younger generation collecting lots of stuff in their homes. Like little figurines, trinkets, and ornaments. Remember how curio cabinets used to be popular? They look really outdated now in modern homes.
The trend seems to be toward minimalism.
That is the indeed the challenge, finding a real buyer with the money for these pieces of art. And listing with a seller who has a client base who may be interested, which of course will cost money, a seller will not help you sell for free. SIL thinks she is going to acquire great riches but the reality will probably prove to be quite different. DH is ready to tell her once the time comes that it's all hers and good luck. After downsizing his own stuff, he's not interested in acquiring any of his parents' things regardless of value.
Already I am finding a lot of items that were worth some money years ago isn't anymore. My sibs and I are working to clear out my late parents' home and there's a lot of antiques, depression glass , china, etc that was worth something back when it was bought but the market dropped out on those things years ago.
I sold my mom's depression glass, china, some crystal about three years ago. And some of her figurine collection. But it took a long time to find the right buyer and multiple listings across Facebook and Craig's list. So it wasn't easy to sell that stuff! I also took a look at ebay listings and china, porcelain, crystal just aren't selling. The listings stay up forever with no bids. My mom had believed these things were so valuable that she actually hid them in her home.
FTFYVery wise of you. In fairness, if it wasn't for the hordes of people who do exactly as you describe, it wouldn't be possible for artists to sell enough work to feed themselves in significant enough numbers for one of them to beat the odds and become famous enough for their originals or limited-edition prints to become worth significantly more than whatAh yes, "investment" art. My ILs used to travel a lot, and they loved to buy art when they traveled. That's great--their prerogative, and I think they enjoy the things that they have bought. Unfortunately, they also love to brag about how much all of this stuff is going to be worth for my kids. Stuff like spectacularly expensive rugs which their dog has wrecked, ceramics of dubious origin, and some oil paintings that are "guaranteed" to go up in value. FIL likes to point out how one of the paintings is going to be my kid's college fund. Said painting sits inches above the buffet where they pile wine, beer, and food during family get-togethers. We smile and nod and continue investing in the kid's 529.Buying art as an investment requires a different approach. You need to buy only art that stands a chance of going up in value, you have to make sure that you'll be able to sell it again which requires that you keep proof of the art's provenance, and you need to ensure the art stays in the same condition it was in when you bought it. Miss even one of these steps, and you've bought the use of a decoration that has aesthetic value but nothing more.I've heard of people buying prints as wall art convinced that these will also function as small investments. After 20 or so years though some of these prints have sun damage. Its just ink on heavy paper after all.That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.yousomeone else other than you paid for it.
Hmm, no, I am not going to steal the art. :) There have been some epic heists over the years; that wasn't me.FTFYVery wise of you. In fairness, if it wasn't for the hordes of people who do exactly as you describe, it wouldn't be possible for artists to sell enough work to feed themselves in significant enough numbers for one of them to beat the odds and become famous enough for their originals or limited-edition prints to become worth significantly more than whatAh yes, "investment" art. My ILs used to travel a lot, and they loved to buy art when they traveled. That's great--their prerogative, and I think they enjoy the things that they have bought. Unfortunately, they also love to brag about how much all of this stuff is going to be worth for my kids. Stuff like spectacularly expensive rugs which their dog has wrecked, ceramics of dubious origin, and some oil paintings that are "guaranteed" to go up in value. FIL likes to point out how one of the paintings is going to be my kid's college fund. Said painting sits inches above the buffet where they pile wine, beer, and food during family get-togethers. We smile and nod and continue investing in the kid's 529.Buying art as an investment requires a different approach. You need to buy only art that stands a chance of going up in value, you have to make sure that you'll be able to sell it again which requires that you keep proof of the art's provenance, and you need to ensure the art stays in the same condition it was in when you bought it. Miss even one of these steps, and you've bought the use of a decoration that has aesthetic value but nothing more.I've heard of people buying prints as wall art convinced that these will also function as small investments. After 20 or so years though some of these prints have sun damage. Its just ink on heavy paper after all.That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.yousomeone else other than you paid for it.
I knew it was risky to quote that whole thread, so I'm not going to compound my error. My meaning was completely different from your take, Grim. I was referring to the people cited who buy "art" expecting it to appreciate wildly and tell their children and grandchildren it's going to be their inheritance. I'm not talking about stealing art. Whoa, that's not where I was going at all.
I knew it was risky to quote that whole thread, so I'm not going to compound my error. My meaning was completely different from your take, Grim. I was referring to the people cited who buy "art" expecting it to appreciate wildly and tell their children and grandchildren it's going to be their inheritance. I'm not talking about stealing art. Whoa, that's not where I was going at all.
I love this thread.
I've got some impending potential drama brewing.
Bit of background: my dad stopped speaking to his brother and sister probably 15 and 10 years ago respectively. They both live in the same state as their dad, but my immediate family all lived in a different state. Of the three, my dad was the one who took care of grandpa, making sure he was covered, paying for his house and all that even when my aunt moved in with grandpa rent free during her separation and eventual divorce. Grandpa didn't like the idea of my dad just giving him money so he signed promissory notes indicating that the money dad gave him would be paid back by grandpa's estate. The notes were clear and they were even mentioned in grandpa's will. Dad was supposed to be the executor of grandpa'a estate.
Fast forward to December 2015 and my dad passes away after a decently lengthy cancer battle that eventually went to his brain, making him bed ridden and not all with it. Grandpa is still living. My mom has decided she's going to enforce the promissory notes against grandpa's eventual estate, not because she'll need the money, but to prevent aunt and uncle, who suddenly reappeared to play the roles of grieving siblings at my dad's service, from getting the money. Mom thinks they don't know about the notes, I'm not too sure. Grandpa claims about six months before dad died, dad told him he was ripping up the notes and not to worry about them.
Not a week after my dad's funeral, we learn that uncle has taken grandpa to get his will redrafted. Not looking forward to the near certain drama over this. Even without the notes, the estate won't be worth much. I've been trying to convince my mom it's not worth fighting with my aunt and uncle but I've gotten nowhere.
Wow, I read this with interest expecting the aunt and uncle to be trouble, but I did not expect that twist from Grandpa!
Yea, we're not sure when this would have happened because those six months would have been when dad was at his least coherent and was only really able to have conversations for a few minutes at a time. He never mentioned this to my mom which is what makes it suspicious because when he was with it, they talked a lot about future plans since it was clear he was deteriorating pretty rapidly.
Uncle and dad also owned a building in the city in which my parents live, even though they didn't speak, dad would still send him his portion of the rental income every month or so. Again, less than a week after dad's death, uncle starts hounding mom about selling the building because uncle wants his money from it. Mom eventually bought uncle out, so that headache has ended fortunately. It's just going to be a nightmare.
And I'm sure if one of my cousins or even my aunt/uncle was telling this story, it'd be all about how my mom is an evil in-law. Really, it's just a crappy situation all around because my dad was supposed to be here to mediate with his family and now my mom is left doing it and she never really got along with her in-laws in the first place.
I'm upset because my father knew she was dying, told my sister so, and still left. I wasn't sure about the second cousin, so it's nice to have a different perspective on that. It just came across to me that they didn't seem to think it necessary to have a family member there to comfort her in her last moments, knowing that it was imminent. I don't think it's necessary to have the whole family there but if someone is all alone I think an effort should be made. I actually wouldn't have travelled across the country if there was someone else to be there with her. I just felt she shouldn't be alone at the end and it was heartless for people to leave her alone knowing she would soon pass.In one of the deaths that I attended, my dying friend's daughter was there too. We sat vigil at her dad's bedside in the hospital. There was a cot, and she had stretched out to get some rest. When his breathing changed and I sensed the end was near, I woke her up. She got up, put on her shoes and left the room. When she returned, he was gone. I know there were a lot of hard feelings between them, and maybe she just couldn't face the actual moment of his death. I'll never know. Later, a nurse took me aside. She'd noticed the daughter leave the room and told me that sometimes people just can't handle the final moments. In the end, she has to live with her decision. It is not for me to judge.
I'm upset because my father knew she was dying, told my sister so, and still left. I wasn't sure about the second cousin, so it's nice to have a different perspective on that. It just came across to me that they didn't seem to think it necessary to have a family member there to comfort her in her last moments, knowing that it was imminent. I don't think it's necessary to have the whole family there but if someone is all alone I think an effort should be made. I actually wouldn't have travelled across the country if there was someone else to be there with her. I just felt she shouldn't be alone at the end and it was heartless for people to leave her alone knowing she would soon pass.In one of the deaths that I attended, my dying friend's daughter was there too. We sat vigil at her dad's bedside in the hospital. There was a cot, and she had stretched out to get some rest. When his breathing changed and I sensed the end was near, I woke her up. She got up, put on her shoes and left the room. When she returned, he was gone. I know there were a lot of hard feelings between them, and maybe she just couldn't face the actual moment of his death. I'll never know. Later, a nurse took me aside. She'd noticed the daughter leave the room and told me that sometimes people just can't handle the final moments. In the end, she has to live with her decision. It is not for me to judge.
One more thing, from my admittedly small sample, is that often a person's spirit seems to be "gone" before they actually stop breathing. I'm not sure how much impact being there for someone's final breath has on them.
About being there at the moment of death, often it can be a judgement call on part of the family/friends based on the information at hand. My father passed away a few months ago. He was in hospice and due to distance from home I stayed the night in his room. My sisters went home to my one sister's house which was about 10 minutes away. Nursing staff assessed that he could probably make it through the night but probably not the next day, meaning the end was close but not imminent. He passed very early in the morning and I just happened to come back into the room from getting coffee just a couple of minutes before he died. My sisters made it to the hospice 10 minutes later. It was just how it went.
When my mom passed two years before, my sisters were there but I was not. My mom had just been admitted to hospice care that day and it was expected she still had some time, so based on this, I made plans to come down the next morning and stay for however long as necessary. I had seen her a couple of days before. She died a few hours later, according to my sisters things declined very quickly and unexpectedly. Again it was just how it went.
I recently learned that my sister has been very angry that I was not there at the time of our mother's death. There's no explaining to her that one cannot anticipate exactly how things are going to go. It's not in our control. But there's nothing any of us can do about it now. I wasn't as enmeshed with my parents as my sisters were (long story) but it was not like I was never there. And I certainly got more involved during my parents' final illnesses. Both parents knew I was there and were fine with what I could do for them.
I'd strongly suggest talking to the staff about what you want to know. When my grandmother passed, I was there but none of her children were. The staff member who was around told us repeatedly (after the event) that she knew that grandmother was going to die that day. If we'd have known then more people would have been there. Hearing that someone knew something and kept quiet made a difficult day more difficult.Please give the staffer a break. They do this all day, every day. Sometimes they know, sometimes they don't.
I'd strongly suggest talking to the staff about what you want to know. When my grandmother passed, I was there but none of her children were. The staff member who was around told us repeatedly (after the event) that she knew that grandmother was going to die that day. If we'd have known then more people would have been there. Hearing that someone knew something and kept quiet made a difficult day more difficult.Please give the staffer a break. They do this all day, every day. Sometimes they know, sometimes they don't.
When my friend referenced above was dying, the nurses were very kind. They told me step-by-step what to expect. My friend had fallen, developed sepsis, and had a terminal illness. It was not "if", it was "when". Thing is, nothing that long, sleepless night happened the way they said it would. Just before dawn, I knew it was happening, because I could feel it, but I was still hesitant to wake his daughter, because it wasn't happening the way the expert said it would.
People who do this work, and most especially the ones who make housecalls to give baths to invalids, are angels on earth.
Thank you for your story, Plugging along.
Count me as another one who would rather not have relatives and friends in the room when I pass. The thought of people grasping at my hands, weeping or moaning, and staring at my face counting my breaths is disturbing and honestly a little ghoulish, to me. I'd prefer to go peacefully in bed in a room by myself. I don't want my loved ones' last image of me as me dying.
There must be plenty of others who feel the same, because I've heard many versions of that same scenario of the person dying as soon as there is no one in their room, for however brief a time.
Well, there's a small group of Angels in Anaheim, CA that do get paid rather well...I'd strongly suggest talking to the staff about what you want to know. When my grandmother passed, I was there but none of her children were. The staff member who was around told us repeatedly (after the event) that she knew that grandmother was going to die that day. If we'd have known then more people would have been there. Hearing that someone knew something and kept quiet made a difficult day more difficult.Please give the staffer a break. They do this all day, every day. Sometimes they know, sometimes they don't.
When my friend referenced above was dying, the nurses were very kind. They told me step-by-step what to expect. My friend had fallen, developed sepsis, and had a terminal illness. It was not "if", it was "when". Thing is, nothing that long, sleepless night happened the way they said it would. Just before dawn, I knew it was happening, because I could feel it, but I was still hesitant to wake his daughter, because it wasn't happening the way the expert said it would.
People who do this work, and most especially the ones who make housecalls to give baths to invalids, are angels on earth.
Agreed...ours, for 3 parents between my DW and myself, would be embarrassed to be called Angels however. They would argue that Angels get much better pay! I agree to them doing Gods work though and I told them so.
avalanche - what a sad story.
Very strange that she would intentionally (or seemingly so) snub someone who she raised and who took care of her.
not a lot of inheritance drama in my family, but there is a bit. great-great aunt "sarah" married into a well-off family at a young age. she and her husband, great-great uncle "max," weren't able to have kids of their own, so they took in their two nieces, "susie" and "eleanor," whose parents were less-than-stable. great-great aunt sarah was a really critical person, and really tight-fisted with money.
both eleanor and susie married. then great-great uncle max passed away, leaving great-great aunt sarah with control of all of the family money. eleanor and her husband had several children, but sarah always spoiled eleanor's oldest son, "martin" -- who would eventually grow up and become my dad. she was always buying him gifts, making excuses for him, letting him do whatever he wanted. he could have turned out really horribly, but luckily he didn't -- although his siblings still resent that preferential treatment, even though by now they're all in their 50s and 60s. my parents moved across the country for a job before i was born, but everyone else remained by sarah.
flash forward a few decades, and aunt sarah isn't as young as she once was. she starts needing almost constant care, which my grandma eleanor provides. eleanor isn't given any kind of payment for this, even though it's essentially a full-time job, but she doesn't complain. sarah and max took her and her sister in when they really needed it, so this is a way she can repay that. there are no direct family heirs at this point other than eleanor and susie, so everyone expects the money to be divided amongst the two of them - with eleanor maybe getting a larger portion since she provided so much support at the end. however, sarah is getting more and more paranoid - she's certain eleanor is only taking care of her for the money, even though eleanor would never dream of mentioning it or even expecting it. she still lets eleanor provide full-time care for her, because it saves her the job of having to pay for a nurse.
after a few years, susan dies. i'm sure no one reading this will be surprised to find out that the will ended up shocking everyone. both susie and eleanor were written out completely. sarah's house and furniture was to be sold off, all the money and investments were to be given to a very, very distant cousin currently living in south korea, whom she'd never met. the only other person remembered was my dad, who was given an antique bedroom set meant for me. however, my parents didn't have a lot of money at the time and couldn't pay to have it shipped across the country, and my dad was indignant that his mom had been forgotten after so many years of care. so he sold it to his mom for barely anything, which let her hold on to something she remembered from her own childhood with susan, and gave her something to remember susan behind.
I can't imagine phoning someone who was going through an estate so that I could see when I was going to get my share.
mementi
I can't imagine phoning someone who was going through an estate so that I could see when I was going to get my share.
When it's just money, indeed this seems horrific.
Often estates include irreplaceable mementi of times the deceased spent with other people. Souvenirs, or hand-written journals. Determining how to dispose of these seems to me like it would be even more difficult.
mementi
*mementos (or mementoes).
mementi
*mementos (or mementoes).
Latin-origin word. Latin plural is actually the same as the singular (momento), but modern Italian is mementi. Not standard English, but technically correct. The best kind of correct.
... technically correct. The best kind of correct.
Err not quite.
Memento is a Latin verb of the Future Imperative form. So it is telling some one "Hey, remember this at some point in the future!" The plural of which is Mementote which is just telling many people to remember something. It was transformed into a noun in English sometime around the 1600's. Since using it as a noun already destroys any Latin pluralization rules, it is only correct to stick to English ones.
Err not quite.
Memento is a Latin verb of the Future Imperative form. So it is telling some one "Hey, remember this at some point in the future!" The plural of which is Mementote which is just telling many people to remember something. It was transformed into a noun in English sometime around the 1600's. Since using it as a noun already destroys any Latin pluralization rules, it is only correct to stick to English ones.
Well, if we're going down this path, *technically* Latin as a spoken vernacular was a thousand years dead by the time this was adopted into English, so unless you're suggesting that English adopted the word from Classical or Ecclesiastical Latin, the word *technically* came to English via Italian*, and so one could argue that the Italian plural is correct. This would be supported by the fact, as you noted, that the Latin word is a verb while the English and Italian is a noun.
*Depending on whether you think the word "Italian" has any meaning pre-19th century. Feel free to replace with your preferred city-state as needed, I'm staying out of that one.
Take it to the grammer police thread! Back to inheritance drama please! :-)
...
I can't imagine phoning someone who was going through an estate so that I could see when I was going to get my share.
...
I can't imagine phoning someone who was going through an estate so that I could see when I was going to get my share.
Well, you may want to prep yourself if you are ever to be a trustee or an executor. I got emails wanting me to anticipate the trust so as to back a once-in-a-lifetime deal wherein strangers would fund their future life, and if I didn't hurry up and do it their subsequent eternal poverty and misery were my fault; emails that they were obstructed and just could not get through the grief process until they got all the trust held for them and their pain and sorrow were all on me for now; emails about the roof (leaking, in the desert) and the wiring (sparking); emails about how long and hurtful the process was. I got no emails saying, "I realize that not forwarding you the bills for a year exposed the trust to collections and lawsuits," though I did get emails saying, "But you should still pay me for the time I spent sitting on them." And none saying, "Fire the attorney before I write him again asking him to analyze the latest of my dingbat life plans, and all the other trust recipients will need to be paying (again) $350 per hour for his fabulously detailed responses to me." That, I had to figure out on my own.
You may think you have achieved the pinnacle (the nadir, might be more accurate) of calcined cynicism, but you are pollyanna compared to an estate attorney or a CPA to large families. Before the process I had thought it took a special talent to raise more than 2 productive, affable children into agreeable adulthood. Now I think it's a miracle.
...
I can't imagine phoning someone who was going through an estate so that I could see when I was going to get my share.
Well, you may want to prep yourself if you are ever to be a trustee or an executor. I got emails wanting me to anticipate the trust so as to back a once-in-a-lifetime deal wherein strangers would fund their future life, and if I didn't hurry up and do it their subsequent eternal poverty and misery were my fault; emails that they were obstructed and just could not get through the grief process until they got all the trust held for them and their pain and sorrow were all on me for now; emails about the roof (leaking, in the desert) and the wiring (sparking); emails about how long and hurtful the process was. I got no emails saying, "I realize that not forwarding you the bills for a year exposed the trust to collections and lawsuits," though I did get emails saying, "But you should still pay me for the time I spent sitting on them." And none saying, "Fire the attorney before I write him again asking him to analyze the latest of my dingbat life plans, and all the other trust recipients will need to be paying (again) $350 per hour for his fabulously detailed responses to me." That, I had to figure out on my own.
You may think you have achieved the pinnacle (the nadir, might be more accurate) of calcined cynicism, but you are pollyanna compared to an estate attorney or a CPA to large families. Before the process I had thought it took a special talent to raise more than 2 productive, affable children into agreeable adulthood. Now I think it's a miracle.
Here is the part that gets me. When Grandpa died, Aunt did not call DH to let him know. I mean, she only had one... ONE person to contact, and could not be bothered?! We found out about it later. (No funeral), and I was frankly surprised that she put in the obit in the paper (named DH too, but just did not call).
Here is the part that gets me. When Grandpa died, Aunt did not call DH to let him know. I mean, she only had one... ONE person to contact, and could not be bothered?! We found out about it later. (No funeral), and I was frankly surprised that she put in the obit in the paper (named DH too, but just did not call).
Not sure about your situation, but sometimes it can be hard to actually say the words that someone is gone. I know when I had a loved one die (unexpectedly), I knew I had a responsibility to let people know, but I had a really really hard time phoning people who were almost strangers to me but were close to my loved one . If there wasn't a funeral already scheduled, I probably wouldn't have done it for the people I wasn't close with.
...Pretty much of a bastard, actually, with occasional attempts to rise to normal human decency. And unfortunately, a good deal more of a bastard after the process than before. I think the real lesson here is that helicopter parents need the skull at the banquet, the sword depending by a horsehair from the ceiling. They desperately need to know they will die. And the money will run out. And when they do and it does, the children, now 45 or 50 or 55 years old, will be wholly incompetent at all normal life tasks. The father died, and left a substantial trust. The mother died, and left a much smaller part of a shared trust. The father's trust was gone when the mother's part that I helped administer came available. It's gone now too. No one told those parents, or maybe no one they would listen to told them, that the better part of love is manifest in helping your kids become independent. On the fundamental level these learned money is obtained by whining and guilt ploys and once obtained, dissipates quickly and mysteriously and is replaced with more. Now they must find a replacement supplier. But with the parents gone, there is no one left alive who will care about these people and provide for them on the level they were led to expect. Their behavior was bad, but their loss was greater than normal; the death of your last parent, no matter how old and sturdy and normal you are, brings a queasy realization that the last bulwark has melted away. If you have well-tried confidence in your own ability, the loss is the ordinary grief humanity is loaded with. In a case like this, the parents had urged and fostered an abnormal bond, as well as economic dependency, so their offspring's grief and their (right) fear about how they were left were very great.
You, sir, are a prince.
If you have well-tried confidence in your own ability, the loss is the ordinary grief humanity is loaded with. In a case like this, the parents had urged and fostered an abnormal bond, as well as economic dependency, so their offspring's grief and their (right) fear about how they were left were very great.
They were acting as they had been cultivated to act.
...Pretty much of a bastard, actually, with occasional attempts to rise to normal human decency.
You, sir, are a prince.
My parents are divorced but both still alive. four kids, 2 which are independent, 2 which are not. Nothing to inherit on my Dad's side. My Mom for the moment has some assets to hopefully keep her afloat until she dies. No wills, no life insurance, etc. She let me know that on her bank accounts, she filled out a form that specifies it is to be split 4 ways when she dies (1/4 to each kid). Hopefully that is sufficient? That's about the extent of her financial planning. However, my mother has made my oldest, wholly dependent on her (codependent relationship). He lives with her and she financially supports him since 1996. I really don't know what he will do when she dies. I guess live on whatever he inherits, and then become homeless? He is an alcoholic and master manipulator, and I would prefer not to live in the same town as him. Sister is not quite as bad, but she has a spotty work history and often quits without lining up anything, so is always on the edge. She's just happy because she found out when she went to the bank with Mom to help her fill out the paperwork, she had an old work IRA at the bank she didn't know about. So she cashed it immediately.This is sad. My neighbor was telling me about her family this weekend. 3 siblings, and the oldest is very bad with money. Such that their family (husband, wife, 2 kids) have lost 4 homes to foreclosure (including a beach condo). For some reason the eldest thinks that she deserves everything from each of her (divorced) parents. They just lost house #4 and will be moving in with mom. 2 teenaged boys too? That's going to go well. Mom doesn't have a will either. I guess the silver lining is that the other two siblings live far far away.
She let me know that on her bank accounts, she filled out a form that specifies it is to be split 4 ways when she dies (1/4 to each kid). Hopefully that is sufficient?
Miss Manners says that this is a task to delegate to the first person who says, "I'm so sorry. Please let me know if I can help you in any way."
I'm sorry for your loss.
Miss Manners says that this is a task to delegate to the first person who says, "I'm so sorry. Please let me know if I can help you in any way."
I'm sorry for your loss.
I wish I had done this. Thank you!
My MIL and I (both only children) were talking about some of these end-of-life matters over the weekend, as we're approaching the fifth anniversary of many milestones associated with her mother's death. It seems like when you have four or more children, there's pretty-much guaranteed to be a drama-loving/moocher/problem child in the group.
But my MIL was quick to point out that being the only child to bear the burden was also difficult in different ways (and that was WITH an incredibly supportive spouse). So my guess is 2-3 siblings is the best. But there are a healthy number of stories here that have problems there, so maybe I'll retreat to "entitled people just suck".
As a slightly lazy version of evil incarnate, I think I want to drink with you.
As a slightly lazy version of evil incarnate, I think I want to drink with you.
I'd enjoy getting together. But I don't drink.
- It seemed to me witless to pour a chemical depressant onto a depressing situation.
- It was making me stupid at night while my children were young. I decided that I could be stuporous (2 beers before a heavy meal) just as much as I wanted, once they were 18. You don't get do-overs for those years.
- It seemed like social chickenshittery. Just as an experiment, ask a group of friends, "When was the last time you had a first time that was alcohol-free?"
Raw carrots and tapwater some time? I get down to NM from time to time hunting.
she filled out a form that specifies it is to be split 4 ways when she dies (1/4 to each kid). Hopefully that is sufficient?
Another example: My other grandma spent the last few years of her life living with the wealthiest one of her four children, in their big fancy house. Her assets helped pay for building an integrated MIL suite, and then supporting the household for all of those years. When she moved into a nursing home, her assets had to be depleted to zero to qualify for medicare and she died penniless. The one daughter she had lived with was left with approximately a half million dollars in improved real estate value as part of her primary residence, that grandma had paid for, but which was technically not one of grandma's assets. The other three kids got nothing of value, other than picture and keepsakes. None of the other siblings were prepared to cry foul, so the one daughter who was already rich was the only one who got anything of value from grandma's assets and everyone sort of swallowed hard and moved on.
I have really just enjoyed this thread and it has given me a lot to think about.
I remember when I was about 18 I visited my grandmother's house for the first time in a long time. I commented on a beautiful silver tea set she had, just told her it was really nice. Her response was "I will make sure you get that when I pass away." I remember being quite surprised by this, as it was just a throwaway comment. Don't get me wrong, I would love to receive it, but I also felt bad that she might have thought I was fishing for stuff.
We don't really talk much these days, so I'm sure I'm not getting the tea set. She has four children, one of whom is my mother. She doesn't talk to two of her children and she and my mother, while they talk, have had their differences. My mother thinks she will leave everything to the youngest daughter (my mother's half sister) and has told her half sister that she will challenge the estate on principal. Interesting times will ensue!
Oh no, she has definitely been horrible to me. I've made the choice as an adult not to have a relationship with her. I didn't invite her to my wedding recently, which I know upset my mother, but she understood. Sometimes I feel a bit guilty about it, but she is not a nice person and if she wasn't related to me, I would never tolerate such behaviour. Sure, we can make allowances for family and she has been made many, but I am pretty much done now.
Another example: My other grandma spent the last few years of her life living with the wealthiest one of her four children, in their big fancy house. Her assets helped pay for building an integrated MIL suite, and then supporting the household for all of those years. When she moved into a nursing home, her assets had to be depleted to zero to qualify for medicare and she died penniless. The one daughter she had lived with was left with approximately a half million dollars in improved real estate value as part of her primary residence, that grandma had paid for, but which was technically not one of grandma's assets. The other three kids got nothing of value, other than picture and keepsakes. None of the other siblings were prepared to cry foul, so the one daughter who was already rich was the only one who got anything of value from grandma's assets and everyone sort of swallowed hard and moved on.
Then again, they had the burden of sharing a residence with the grandma. Some grandmas would be a blessing to live with, others would be a never-ending hell. I have to say that, given some of the hateful folks I've known over the years, the other family members might actually OWE their rich sibling for the extra hassle. :(
My MIL and I (both only children) were talking about some of these end-of-life matters over the weekend, as we're approaching the fifth anniversary of many milestones associated with her mother's death. It seems like when you have four or more children, there's pretty-much guaranteed to be a drama-loving/moocher/problem child in the group.
But my MIL was quick to point out that being the only child to bear the burden was also difficult in different ways (and that was WITH an incredibly supportive spouse). So my guess is 2-3 siblings is the best. But there are a healthy number of stories here that have problems there, so maybe I'll retreat to "entitled people just suck".
Trouble is a'brewing....
MIL owns a mobile home in Boulder CO...in a lovely park. Mobile home is 30 years old and holds little value. BIL lives in southern CA but struggles mightily due to felony history/bad choices/evil ex wife/child support obligation he chose not to pay/back taxes...anyway.
Two years ago, MIL asked us to be joint owners on her home in lieu of BIL so the IRS/State of CA won't seize it when she dies to pay his debts. Fine, we agree. Now come to find out she is running up loads of debt, never intending to pay it off. Living outside her means and whatnot. When she passes (she's turning 95 this summer) we inherit the "house" and are executors of her estate. She was hoping that by transferring the house to us, we could sell it and give the cash left over to BIL secret-like so the people he owes wont find it. We now realize her scheme and intend to transfer the house back into the estate upon her demise so as to pay off her debts. Whatever is left goes to BIL.
Now come to find out that BIL expects us to continue to own the house after she passes, and then he plans to move into it, paying the spot rent to the Mobile home park and maintaining the house. Problem is the park doesn't allow subleases, so we'll be on the lease, and if he stops paying rent, we are on the hook for evicting BIL from the house before we can sell it. It was going to be a PITA to deal with originally but if MIL allows BIL to move in prior to her demise we have a whole different set of problems.
Cheapskate Wife,The house is worth about $20K...if we sold it would cover most of her debts, and that feels like the right thing to do.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if the house/mobile home is not worth anything, then what's the harm in letting BIL live there? Or am I confusing things and the "house" is different than the "mobile home"?
In the long run if BIL has a roof over his head, even if it's a 30 yr old mobile home, then at least he won't come knocking on your door to live with you.
CheapskateWife, this isn't what you asked about but heads up that if your husband is placed on the ownership papers rather than given the house via a will after MIL's death, he may have a tax liability not covered by MIL's "estate" when he sells it at YOUR tax rate or, if it is so old as to be unusable, mobile home removal and disposal fees. You may have already investigated this, but I thought you might want a heads up.
Trouble is a'brewing....
MIL owns a mobile home in Boulder CO...in a lovely park. Mobile home is 30 years old and holds little value. BIL lives in southern CA but struggles mightily due to felony history/bad choices/evil ex wife/child support obligation he chose not to pay/back taxes...anyway.
Two years ago, MIL asked us to be joint owners on her home in lieu of BIL so the IRS/State of CA won't seize it when she dies to pay his debts. Fine, we agree. Now come to find out she is running up loads of debt, never intending to pay it off. Living outside her means and whatnot. When she passes (she's turning 95 this summer) we inherit the "house" and are executors of her estate. She was hoping that by transferring the house to us, we could sell it and give the cash left over to BIL secret-like so the people he owes wont find it. We now realize her scheme and intend to transfer the house back into the estate upon her demise so as to pay off her debts. Whatever is left goes to BIL.
Now come to find out that BIL expects us to continue to own the house after she passes, and then he plans to move into it, paying the spot rent to the Mobile home park and maintaining the house. Problem is the park doesn't allow subleases, so we'll be on the lease, and if he stops paying rent, we are on the hook for evicting BIL from the house before we can sell it. It was going to be a PITA to deal with originally but if MIL allows BIL to move in prior to her demise we have a whole different set of problems.
Cheapskate Wife,The secret sauce is that MIL owns the house, but rents the property the house sits on. So if BIL moves into the house, CW will be on the hook for the lease of the lot, and BIL sounds unlikely to pay rent in full, not piss off the landlord, etc.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if the house/mobile home is not worth anything, then what's the harm in letting BIL live there? Or am I confusing things and the "house" is different than the "mobile home"?
In the long run if BIL has a roof over his head, even if it's a 30 yr old mobile home, then at least he won't come knocking on your door to live with you.
I would just offer to give your share of the "home" to BIL today. That would solve this mightily, and should please him.. (ETA I see you have already broached it. Keep trying, explain that they don't seize a primary residence).We are keeping this little gem to ourselves...I understand MIL's intent is to help BIL out as much as possible, but on the backs of creditors is not the way to do that. I've attempted to reason with her but she won't have it. Or maybe we do tell her and she finds an executor who will do her bidding...oh this is a tempting option
Of course, people are not rational, so MIL/BIL finding out that you otherwise intend to put the home back to the estate may be a nasty surprise.
CSW, can your DH just file a quit claim regarding your MIL's property, removing you all from this issue without needing any agreement from MIL or BIL?I had never considered this...will start investigating.
The secret sauce is that MIL owns the house, but rents the property the house sits on. So if BIL moves into the house, CW will be on the hook for the lease of the lot, and BIL sounds unlikely to pay rent in full, not piss off the landlord, etc.This is exactly the case...also if we don't sell it and pay off creditors, then there is a whole lot of hassle we've got to deal with as executors.
Re-reading everything, including your wish not to tell MIL that you plan to sell to pay taxes....Actually we are really putting it back in the estate to pay her debts...there-in lies the rub. She feels that the banks are evil and they deserve to lose money to her debt; she intends to stiff her creditors and has crafted her asset ownership and will to effect that end; also to maximize the amount of money we are able to pass to the BIL (secret like because in the will, DH is the sole beneficiary)
Could you give her a reason why receiving it as a joint owner upon her death causes you extra $$'s and you just want your name off the title / revert back to her?
Maybe talk about the future taxes, and that it is best if she has it solely in her name.?
Re-reading everything, including your wish not to tell MIL that you plan to sell to pay taxes....Actually we are really putting it back in the estate to pay her debts...there-in lies the rub. She feels that the banks are evil and they deserve to lose money to her debt; she intends to stiff her creditors and has crafted her asset ownership and will to effect that end; also to maximize the amount of money we are able to pass to the BIL (secret like because in the will, DH is the sole beneficiary)
Could you give her a reason why receiving it as a joint owner upon her death causes you extra $$'s and you just want your name off the title / revert back to her?
Maybe talk about the future taxes, and that it is best if she has it solely in her name.?
There is just no reasoning with her on things like this.
I must be missing something. [edited]...you don't want to tell MIL your plans, but you've told BIL. Will BIL not talk to MIL about this? And, is not telling MIL just to maintain the option to pay off creditors or is it somehow a 'kindness' or other reason?No worries....its a super complicated situation. We have not told either BIL or MIL yet what we intend to do...but after discussing much this weekend, we intend to bow out of executorship and ask her to find someone else to inherit the house. We want out, free and clear.
Why not just come clean on your intentions [edited]?
IDK but it seems there are relatively easier ways to get out of the middle.
ETA: Sorry for possible foam...edited for brevity
I must be missing something. [edited]...you don't want to tell MIL your plans, but you've told BIL. Will BIL not talk to MIL about this? And, is not telling MIL just to maintain the option to pay off creditors or is it somehow a 'kindness' or other reason?No worries....its a super complicated situation. We have not told either BIL or MIL yet what we intend to do...but after discussing much this weekend, we intend to bow out of executorship and ask her to find someone else to inherit the house. We want out, free and clear.
Why not just come clean on your intentions [edited]?
IDK but it seems there are relatively easier ways to get out of the middle.
ETA: Sorry for possible foam...edited for brevity
It's important to recognize two things here. Doesn't matter what's in the will, no one can make you be an executor of an estate and no one can make you accept their bequeathed property. Say no now, but recognize that if she doesn't listen, you can say no later, too.
It would be tempting to sell the proceeds from the mobile home after the eventual death of MIL and pass the proceeds along to BIL's ex-wife to make up for some of the back child support her kids' deadbeat dad has owed all these years. Of course I'm painting with a broad brush of assumption (what is the ex-wife like? are the kids still minors?) And of course it would not end well with the BIL but sounds like no scenario will be satisfactory with him.That is an interesting idea...the state of CA pays support to the intended recipients whether they receive it or not, and then charge appropriately exorbitant fees to the non-payer for being a burden to the Tax Payers...maybe we'll send the proceed to the state child support office in his name.
...the state of CA pays support to the intended recipients whether they receive it or not, and then charge appropriately exorbitant fees to the non-payer for being a burden to the Tax Payers...maybe we'll send the proceed to the state child support office in his name.
It's important to recognize two things here. Doesn't matter what's in the will, no one can make you be an executor of an estate and no one can make you accept their bequeathed property. Say no now, but recognize that if she doesn't listen, you can say no later, too.
It's important to recognize two things here. Doesn't matter what's in the will, no one can make you be an executor of an estate and no one can make you accept their bequeathed property. Say no now, but recognize that if she doesn't listen, you can say no later, too.
I was ready to say "no" to my parents' timeshare which my parents bequeathed to me and my sisters. They set that up when they bought the timeshare 25 years ago but by the time my folks passed that thing was a financial albatross. Luckily we were able to get the timeshare company to buy it back but it was touch and go with them for a while as they (the timeshare company) really didn't like doing it.
ETA: A few years after my folks bought their timeshare, my sister and BIL bought one as well. Not a good deal, they somehow managed to get rid of it after a few years, but before those things became largely unsellable.
I really don't understand timeshares. You can often get equal cost hotels by doing a little research for each trip, and it doesn't require locking into a certain brand. In fact, we try to stay at timeshares for cash. At worst, they've tried to pitch us or get us to attend a sales meeting, but 2 or 3 rejections and they stop.
When my in-laws die, we will absolutely reject the timeshare that they own. Thank goodness my folks never got roped into that kinda nonsense.
Wait, so are you saying that we could just not do anything? Shred the will and pretend it doesn't exist? She passes and we have the memorial, file a quit claim deed on the trailer and gift it to the mobile home park and then not do anything about her bills, creditors, or anything? Let them keep sending bills to her address, but no one answers them? No filing of final taxes. Nothing? I'm kindof liking this idea :-)It's important to recognize two things here. Doesn't matter what's in the will, no one can make you be an executor of an estate and no one can make you accept their bequeathed property. Say no now, but recognize that if she doesn't listen, you can say no later, too.
This.
My father named my husband as executor. Then we found out that since we live in a different country from Dad, having my husband as executor makes the estate count as a foreign estate and be subject to higher tax. So we asked my sister (who lives near my father, speaks the language better than DH does, is familiar with the legal system there, etc.) if she would mind being the executor. She agreed, and Dad agreed to change his will, but he's a procrastinator and 83 years old, so DH may well end up having to refuse.
Wait, so are you saying that we could just not do anything? Shred the will and pretend it doesn't exist? She passes and we have the memorial, file a quit claim deed on the trailer and gift it to the mobile home park and then not do anything about her bills, creditors, or anything? Let them keep sending bills to her address, but no one answers them? No filing of final taxes. Nothing? I'm kindof liking this idea :-)It's important to recognize two things here. Doesn't matter what's in the will, no one can make you be an executor of an estate and no one can make you accept their bequeathed property. Say no now, but recognize that if she doesn't listen, you can say no later, too.
This.
My father named my husband as executor. Then we found out that since we live in a different country from Dad, having my husband as executor makes the estate count as a foreign estate and be subject to higher tax. So we asked my sister (who lives near my father, speaks the language better than DH does, is familiar with the legal system there, etc.) if she would mind being the executor. She agreed, and Dad agreed to change his will, but he's a procrastinator and 83 years old, so DH may well end up having to refuse.
I would consult an attorney- I would not destroy a will- but you do not have to accept being the executor. You can decline and I assume the state will appoint someone. As others have pointed out , you do not have to accept a bequest. People die intestate all the time.
I actually just got some glorious news. I'm off the hook and no longer executor for an out-of-country estate.Just scrolling the thread. Grimsqueaker, I have the same messed up family dynamic and I left that country 20yrs ago, returned 3yrs ago and left again never ever to step back in that viper nest. Yeah, tonly gets worse ...
My parents, who are not at all Mustachian anymore because they started making serious money later in life, wanted me to be the executor for their estate and to-- get this-- manage my estranged fuckup sibling's trust and dole out such money as he needs to continue enabling his cranially-rectally-inverted ways while still saddling me with the responsiblity of making sure the moron doesn't drink himself to death or throw a booze-filled tantrum and drive into someone who matters. After decades of enabling the little dipshit they wanted to drag me onto the codependent merry-go-round in their place. This is despite the fact I took off nearly twenty years ago and left the freaking country to avoid the stupid family drama.
Luckily, they found an estate lawyer who bitchslapped some sense into them. They aren't going to make my idiot sibling executor (said sibling went bankrupt without having actual bad life experiences, just bad financial decision making). We will be paying someone else to just liquidate everything in sight.
I am So. Fucking. Relieved.
Well, this isn't exactly inheritance, but this seemed like the thread to put it in.
...snip...
The frustrating part is they NEVER GOT MARRIED. After living together for nearly two decades, he just didn't want to do it. Now he doesn't qualify for Social Security survivors benefits. While I'm sure it wouldn't be huge, it could have been the difference between cash-flow positive and cash-flow negative for the rest of his life. I totally get that marriage is a very personal thing, but so is living on the edge forever.
Well, this isn't exactly inheritance, but this seemed like the thread to put it in.Try to convince them to get married asap! Because they've been together so long, SSA will consider them wed by virtue of common law. If they own property together, that may make it even easier. It may sound morbid to push this, but it could save his bacon big time. We know/knew a couple who did this. Pictures of them together over the years made their case.
My father-in-law's live in girlfriend of 20+ years "Ann" has late stage cancer. She's not doing well. The doctor gives her several weeks.
My FIL is self employed and has zero saved for retirement at 70. He plans to work until the day he dies. He's always worked hard enough to pay the bills, and has always taken plenty of time off during his working years.
When "Ann" got sick, they lost half of their income and had to go to Cobra. They were negative cash-flow and couldn't pay the mortgage. We gave them some money to get them through with no expectations of repayment, and are happy to be in a position to support them.
It's clear FIL will have to sell the house very soon after she passes. I don't think his self-employment income will support his spending, and I don't think there's a reasonable path to getting there.
The frustrating part is they NEVER GOT MARRIED. After living together for nearly two decades, he just didn't want to do it. Now he doesn't qualify for Social Security survivors benefits. While I'm sure it wouldn't be huge, it could have been the difference between cash-flow positive and cash-flow negative for the rest of his life. I totally get that marriage is a very personal thing, but so is living on the edge forever.
* Right after the diagnosis, the other sister accused a brother of squandering his finances on prostitutes and shopping sprees to win our dad's sympathy and a larger share of the estate
* Right after the diagnosis, the other sister accused a brother of squandering his finances on prostitutes and shopping sprees to win our dad's sympathy and a larger share of the estate
I'm having a hard time imagining how this works. "Aww, poor Dicky, his apartment is full of brand-new things and piles of used condoms. I better increase his inheritance so he'll feel better"?
I'm sorry for the loss of your father, and for the tragedy in the making.
Well, this isn't exactly inheritance, but this seemed like the thread to put it in.Try to convince them to get married asap! Because they've been together so long, SSA will consider them wed by virtue of common law. If they own property together, that may make it even easier. It may sound morbid to push this, but it could save his bacon big time. We know/knew a couple who did this. Pictures of them together over the years made their case.
My father-in-law's live in girlfriend of 20+ years "Ann" has late stage cancer. She's not doing well. The doctor gives her several weeks.
My FIL is self employed and has zero saved for retirement at 70. He plans to work until the day he dies. He's always worked hard enough to pay the bills, and has always taken plenty of time off during his working years.
When "Ann" got sick, they lost half of their income and had to go to Cobra. They were negative cash-flow and couldn't pay the mortgage. We gave them some money to get them through with no expectations of repayment, and are happy to be in a position to support them.
It's clear FIL will have to sell the house very soon after she passes. I don't think his self-employment income will support his spending, and I don't think there's a reasonable path to getting there.
The frustrating part is they NEVER GOT MARRIED. After living together for nearly two decades, he just didn't want to do it. Now he doesn't qualify for Social Security survivors benefits. While I'm sure it wouldn't be huge, it could have been the difference between cash-flow positive and cash-flow negative for the rest of his life. I totally get that marriage is a very personal thing, but so is living on the edge forever.
* Right after the diagnosis, the other sister accused a brother of squandering his finances on prostitutes and shopping sprees to win our dad's sympathy and a larger share of the estate
I'm having a hard time imagining how this works. "Aww, poor Dicky, his apartment is full of brand-new things and piles of used condoms. I better increase his inheritance so he'll feel better"?
I'm sorry for the loss of your father, and for the tragedy in the making.
I thought the prostitutes we're to cheer Dad up...
IDK, but this case did happen in CA, within the last 10 years. They married on his deathbed and she was able to collect his Social Security.Well, this isn't exactly inheritance, but this seemed like the thread to put it in.Try to convince them to get married asap! Because they've been together so long, SSA will consider them wed by virtue of common law. If they own property together, that may make it even easier. It may sound morbid to push this, but it could save his bacon big time. We know/knew a couple who did this. Pictures of them together over the years made their case.
My father-in-law's live in girlfriend of 20+ years "Ann" has late stage cancer. She's not doing well. The doctor gives her several weeks.
My FIL is self employed and has zero saved for retirement at 70. He plans to work until the day he dies. He's always worked hard enough to pay the bills, and has always taken plenty of time off during his working years.
When "Ann" got sick, they lost half of their income and had to go to Cobra. They were negative cash-flow and couldn't pay the mortgage. We gave them some money to get them through with no expectations of repayment, and are happy to be in a position to support them.
It's clear FIL will have to sell the house very soon after she passes. I don't think his self-employment income will support his spending, and I don't think there's a reasonable path to getting there.
The frustrating part is they NEVER GOT MARRIED. After living together for nearly two decades, he just didn't want to do it. Now he doesn't qualify for Social Security survivors benefits. While I'm sure it wouldn't be huge, it could have been the difference between cash-flow positive and cash-flow negative for the rest of his life. I totally get that marriage is a very personal thing, but so is living on the edge forever.
Unfortunately, California is not a state that recognizes common law marriages. I think it's already too late, as she is confined to her bed, and can barely speak. Everything being done on her behalf is under a power-of-attorney (that FIL can't actually find).
Well, this isn't exactly inheritance, but this seemed like the thread to put it in.
My father-in-law's live in girlfriend of 20+ years "Ann" has late stage cancer. She's not doing well. The doctor gives her several weeks.
My FIL is self employed and has zero saved for retirement at 70. He plans to work until the day he dies. He's always worked hard enough to pay the bills, and has always taken plenty of time off during his working years.
When "Ann" got sick, they lost half of their income and had to go to Cobra. They were negative cash-flow and couldn't pay the mortgage. We gave them some money to get them through with no expectations of repayment, and are happy to be in a position to support them.
It's clear FIL will have to sell the house very soon after she passes. I don't think his self-employment income will support his spending, and I don't think there's a reasonable path to getting there.
The frustrating part is they NEVER GOT MARRIED. After living together for nearly two decades, he just didn't want to do it. Now he doesn't qualify for Social Security survivors benefits. While I'm sure it wouldn't be huge, it could have been the difference between cash-flow positive and cash-flow negative for the rest of his life. I totally get that marriage is a very personal thing, but so is living on the edge forever.
Under normal circumstances survivor SS is half of the regular SS and you have the choice to take that or your own benefit but not both.
The complication is that SS benefits are not linear, such that you usually have to earn far more than twice as much to get double the benefit. This means it usually only makes sense to take the survivor benefit if the survivor had little or no earned income of their own. Usually your own benefit will be larger.
Under normal circumstances survivor SS is half of the regular SS and you have the choice to take that or your own benefit but not both.
Under normal circumstances survivor SS is half of the regular SS and you have the choice to take that or your own benefit but not both.
The complication is that SS benefits are not linear, such that you usually have to earn far more than twice as much to get double the benefit. This means it usually only makes sense to take the survivor benefit if the survivor had little or no earned income of their own. Usually your own benefit will be larger.
On the other hand, to do him strict justice, losing those licenses was not the blow to him that it might be to most people, as he never was very employable, and even when he was, felt degraded by mere labor, as his true calling was to be a spiritual leader to the rest of us.
So I have a situation, I wouldn't exactly call it drama, maybe I just need to vent.
My MIL passed away earlier this year. She fought lung cancer for a year, so before she died she was very explicit about how she wanted things distributed. They have three kids, my husband is the youngest. She willed an apartment in Taipei to their daughter, who currently lives there. It's worth approximately $800,000. She willed their primary residence in Vancouver BC to the oldest son. It was purchased for approximately $1.6M. She wanted my BIL to give us $800,000 CDN as half the value of the house.
Now my husband has this extreme aversion to taking money from his relatives. It really just makes him feel bad. At first he said he didn't want any of it, and that his brother had a right to the house since he was going to be living in it with their dad and taking care of him. But obviously my MIL was not going to agree to not leaving her youngest anything. She was very insistent on everything being equal. So we said okay.
My BIL is an upstanding guy and even before my MIL passed has been asking us to setup a Canadian dollar account so he can wire the money to us. But my husband has been trying to avoid it. He basically just changes the subject whenever his brother brings it up. I talked about going to the nearest HSBC and setting up an account but he never seems to want to do it. There was also talk about buying property on Vancouver Island, at which point he actually expressed the wish for his brother to retain ownership of any properties purchased. So essentially he just doesn't want the money.
We are very stable financially and well on our way to FI in about six years, but $800,000 CDN is a lot of money. Even just sitting in a savings account at 1% interest that's $8000 a year. Knowing my BIL he would try very hard to get the money to us, but it kind of galls me that that kind of money meanwhile is just sitting there. Also I'm not sure how hard he would try if my husband just doesn't want to cooperate. My fear is that eventually the issue might just die.
Anyway, that's the inheritance drama in my life right now, and yes, I'm aware that it lies entirely with my husband.
According to her, we should not tell anyone when she dies. She let me know that, unbeknownst to me, she still has the joint savings account that she opened for me when I was like 5 years old (it is in another state . . . not that state that she lives in now and not the state that I live in now). Seriously my signature on that thing is from when I could barely write my name, and last time I saw that account before I left for college the balance was right around a hundred dollars. She pitched the idea that I not tell anyone she died, that way, get this: I can continue depositing her social security check into that account for years after. She pitched it like this criminal idea was some kind of gift to me that I should be grateful to receive.
That's right: good old-fashioned social security fraud of the worst kind. What the literal fuck?!
Yeah, I was pretty taken aback by her suggestion.I'm so sorry you have to deal with this. You and your brother are to be commended for the way you're both handling it. It must be difficult for both of you. Congratulations on breaking the cycle of crazy-ass bullshit.
I talked to my brother about it, and he was not surprised although he hadn't heard about this particular nonsense yet. She has always had a series of nutty ideas, and it seems she floats crazy schemes by him quite regularly. It is not new behavior and not dementia as far as we can see. Most of her schemes involve him doing something for her that he doesn't want to do for reasons ranging from he just doesn't have time to it would be illegal. All of them involve her benefiting directly through either money or having to do less labor. He has good boundaries and declines her ideas firmly and repeatedly.
His opinion is that she's just always been dishonest. She is one of those hypocritical "lecture everyone else about how important honesty is" kind of dishonest people. Kids tend to revere their parents regardless of how they really are, so I always tried to give her the benefit of the doubt growing up, and then there were all the honesty lectures. He has spent a lot more time with her as an adult (I escaped to another state as soon as I could) . . . and he has observed and reflected on her behavior a lot more than I have.
It seems to me like what lies behind her insane plan to defraud the government is that she wants to feel like she is giving us some inheritance when in reality she has nothing of value to leave us. We don't care that she has no money to leave. She seems to want something to use as leverage now so she is grasping at straws. She seems to want to stir up drama between her kids over distribution of her imaginary vast estate. Her own parents, who were truly awful people in many ways, did the same thing to her and her sisters, only they somewhat bought into it. We are just not buying into her bullshit.
Inheritance drama is always tedious. Inheritance drama stirred up by a person who is still alive and has nothing of value to leave heirs is totally ridiculous.
Yeah, I was pretty taken aback by her suggestion.I'm so sorry you have to deal with this. You and your brother are to be commended for the way you're both handling it. It must be difficult for both of you. Congratulations on breaking the cycle of crazy-ass bullshit.
I talked to my brother about it, and he was not surprised although he hadn't heard about this particular nonsense yet. She has always had a series of nutty ideas, and it seems she floats crazy schemes by him quite regularly. It is not new behavior and not dementia as far as we can see. Most of her schemes involve him doing something for her that he doesn't want to do for reasons ranging from he just doesn't have time to it would be illegal. All of them involve her benefiting directly through either money or having to do less labor. He has good boundaries and declines her ideas firmly and repeatedly.
His opinion is that she's just always been dishonest. She is one of those hypocritical "lecture everyone else about how important honesty is" kind of dishonest people. Kids tend to revere their parents regardless of how they really are, so I always tried to give her the benefit of the doubt growing up, and then there were all the honesty lectures. He has spent a lot more time with her as an adult (I escaped to another state as soon as I could) . . . and he has observed and reflected on her behavior a lot more than I have.
It seems to me like what lies behind her insane plan to defraud the government is that she wants to feel like she is giving us some inheritance when in reality she has nothing of value to leave us. We don't care that she has no money to leave. She seems to want something to use as leverage now so she is grasping at straws. She seems to want to stir up drama between her kids over distribution of her imaginary vast estate. Her own parents, who were truly awful people in many ways, did the same thing to her and her sisters, only they somewhat bought into it. We are just not buying into her bullshit.
Inheritance drama is always tedious. Inheritance drama stirred up by a person who is still alive and has nothing of value to leave heirs is totally ridiculous.
she filled out a form that specifies it is to be split 4 ways when she dies (1/4 to each kid). Hopefully that is sufficient?
In my family, the conflicts weren't over easy things like dividing up bank accounts.
One example: Before my grandmother died, she moved into an assisted living facility and one of my cousins (and her family) moved into grandma's house (not free, but at very a very subsidized rent). When grandma died, the will specified that the house be sold and the proceeds divided between her children, but the cousin's family tried to argue that cousin should get to keep renting the house, because grandma had been letting her live there, and they were going to be homeless without it. Are you prepared to kick out a family with small children just so you can cash out of a property in accordance with the will? Parts of my family still aren't speaking to each other after this debacle.
Another example: My other grandma spent the last few years of her life living with the wealthiest one of her four children, in their big fancy house. Her assets helped pay for building an integrated MIL suite, and then supporting the household for all of those years. When she moved into a nursing home, her assets had to be depleted to zero to qualify for medicare and she died penniless. The one daughter she had lived with was left with approximately a half million dollars in improved real estate value as part of her primary residence, that grandma had paid for, but which was technically not one of grandma's assets. The other three kids got nothing of value, other than picture and keepsakes. None of the other siblings were prepared to cry foul, so the one daughter who was already rich was the only one who got anything of value from grandma's assets and everyone sort of swallowed hard and moved on.
These sorts of complications are hard to foresee when you write a will, because neither of them were issues until the end-stages of life.
Yeah, I was pretty taken aback by her suggestion.
I talked to my brother about it, and he was not surprised although he hadn't heard about this particular nonsense yet. She has always had a series of nutty ideas, and it seems she floats crazy schemes by him quite regularly. It is not new behavior and not dementia as far as we can see.
The best thing for everyone is to either sign it over to her her or evict her. Pick one or the other. You are both responsible for the current situation.she filled out a form that specifies it is to be split 4 ways when she dies (1/4 to each kid). Hopefully that is sufficient?
In my family, the conflicts weren't over easy things like dividing up bank accounts.
One example: Before my grandmother died, she moved into an assisted living facility and one of my cousins (and her family) moved into grandma's house (not free, but at very a very subsidized rent). When grandma died, the will specified that the house be sold and the proceeds divided between her children, but the cousin's family tried to argue that cousin should get to keep renting the house, because grandma had been letting her live there, and they were going to be homeless without it. Are you prepared to kick out a family with small children just so you can cash out of a property in accordance with the will? Parts of my family still aren't speaking to each other after this debacle.
Another example: My other grandma spent the last few years of her life living with the wealthiest one of her four children, in their big fancy house. Her assets helped pay for building an integrated MIL suite, and then supporting the household for all of those years. When she moved into a nursing home, her assets had to be depleted to zero to qualify for medicare and she died penniless. The one daughter she had lived with was left with approximately a half million dollars in improved real estate value as part of her primary residence, that grandma had paid for, but which was technically not one of grandma's assets. The other three kids got nothing of value, other than picture and keepsakes. None of the other siblings were prepared to cry foul, so the one daughter who was already rich was the only one who got anything of value from grandma's assets and everyone sort of swallowed hard and moved on.
These sorts of complications are hard to foresee when you write a will, because neither of them were issues until the end-stages of life.
I bolded the above because I'm in a slightly similar situation. Mom was not doing well, my sister moved in with her and took care of her for maybe a year. Got on the checking account to help pay the bills. When mom died, she left the house to both of us.
I let her stay in the house rent free because she did take care of mom.
It's now going on 7 years, and I'm kinda stuck, she has a low paying job, no assets and probably couldn't qualify for a mortgage. If I forced a sale, she would probably be back to living in a van with her girlfriend.
When I talk to her, there is always some comment to let me know just how tight money is, even though I have never brought up the idea of her paying me anything.
she filled out a form that specifies it is to be split 4 ways when she dies (1/4 to each kid). Hopefully that is sufficient?
In my family, the conflicts weren't over easy things like dividing up bank accounts.
One example: Before my grandmother died, she moved into an assisted living facility and one of my cousins (and her family) moved into grandma's house (not free, but at very a very subsidized rent). When grandma died, the will specified that the house be sold and the proceeds divided between her children, but the cousin's family tried to argue that cousin should get to keep renting the house, because grandma had been letting her live there, and they were going to be homeless without it. Are you prepared to kick out a family with small children just so you can cash out of a property in accordance with the will? Parts of my family still aren't speaking to each other after this debacle.
Another example: My other grandma spent the last few years of her life living with the wealthiest one of her four children, in their big fancy house. Her assets helped pay for building an integrated MIL suite, and then supporting the household for all of those years. When she moved into a nursing home, her assets had to be depleted to zero to qualify for medicare and she died penniless. The one daughter she had lived with was left with approximately a half million dollars in improved real estate value as part of her primary residence, that grandma had paid for, but which was technically not one of grandma's assets. The other three kids got nothing of value, other than picture and keepsakes. None of the other siblings were prepared to cry foul, so the one daughter who was already rich was the only one who got anything of value from grandma's assets and everyone sort of swallowed hard and moved on.
These sorts of complications are hard to foresee when you write a will, because neither of them were issues until the end-stages of life.
I bolded the above because I'm in a slightly similar situation. Mom was not doing well, my sister moved in with her and took care of her for maybe a year. Got on the checking account to help pay the bills. When mom died, she left the house to both of us.
I let her stay in the house rent free because she did take care of mom.
It's now going on 7 years, and I'm kinda stuck, she has a low paying job, no assets and probably couldn't qualify for a mortgage. If I forced a sale, she would probably be back to living in a van with her girlfriend.
When I talk to her, there is always some comment to let me know just how tight money is, even though I have never brought up the idea of her paying me anything.
So now I am concerned about something else: my own will has Granny Grace listed as managing the trust for my kids if I die before they are adults. I'm going to have to get the bank to do it, apparently, as she is now confirmed as both incompetent and dishonest. Sigh. I won't go into the reasons why I don't want my brother or other relatives to handle it . . . the bank it is!
Yeah, I was pretty taken aback by her suggestion.I'm so sorry you have to deal with this. You and your brother are to be commended for the way you're both handling it. It must be difficult for both of you. Congratulations on breaking the cycle of crazy-ass bullshit.
I talked to my brother about it, and he was not surprised although he hadn't heard about this particular nonsense yet. She has always had a series of nutty ideas, and it seems she floats crazy schemes by him quite regularly. It is not new behavior and not dementia as far as we can see. Most of her schemes involve him doing something for her that he doesn't want to do for reasons ranging from he just doesn't have time to it would be illegal. All of them involve her benefiting directly through either money or having to do less labor. He has good boundaries and declines her ideas firmly and repeatedly.
His opinion is that she's just always been dishonest. She is one of those hypocritical "lecture everyone else about how important honesty is" kind of dishonest people. Kids tend to revere their parents regardless of how they really are, so I always tried to give her the benefit of the doubt growing up, and then there were all the honesty lectures. He has spent a lot more time with her as an adult (I escaped to another state as soon as I could) . . . and he has observed and reflected on her behavior a lot more than I have.
It seems to me like what lies behind her insane plan to defraud the government is that she wants to feel like she is giving us some inheritance when in reality she has nothing of value to leave us. We don't care that she has no money to leave. She seems to want something to use as leverage now so she is grasping at straws. She seems to want to stir up drama between her kids over distribution of her imaginary vast estate. Her own parents, who were truly awful people in many ways, did the same thing to her and her sisters, only they somewhat bought into it. We are just not buying into her bullshit.
Inheritance drama is always tedious. Inheritance drama stirred up by a person who is still alive and has nothing of value to leave heirs is totally ridiculous.
I agree with Candace, and I'm particularly impressed that you and your brother are on the same page over this - "divide and rule" is so often used against siblings in this sort of situation.
My husband was specifically left an organ grinders' bench in his mother's will. We have no idea what this is- he doesn't remember any bench in his house that was called an organ grinders' bench. There were no benches in the house. Total mystery what this thing was.
My husband was specifically left an organ grinders' bench in his mother's will. We have no idea what this is- he doesn't remember any bench in his house that was called an organ grinders' bench. There were no benches in the house. Total mystery what this thing was.
So now I am concerned about something else: my own will has Granny Grace listed as managing the trust for my kids if I die before they are adults. I'm going to have to get the bank to do it, apparently, as she is now confirmed as both incompetent and dishonest. Sigh. I won't go into the reasons why I don't want my brother or other relatives to handle it . . . the bank it is!
Oh come on now, tell us the reasons. You know we live vicariously.
...
There are more candidates, but you get the idea . . . I just don't think I have anyone in my family to handle it properly. I'd rather pay the bank 1% a year and know the majority of the money is actually going for my own children's health, education, and maintenance.
My husband was specifically left an organ grinders' bench in his mother's will. We have no idea what this is- he doesn't remember any bench in his house that was called an organ grinders' bench. There were no benches in the house. Total mystery what this thing was.
Lol... well,, an organ grinder was a crank (hand operated) organ, a bit like a very large music box... so if there were no musical instruments, and it just named a bench, it may have looked more like a small table, or even a baby pram with wheels / cart.
Any money would be used selfishly on what I consider a ridiculous lifestyle while rationalizing that it is really being spent for the kids.
...
There are more candidates, but you get the idea . . . I just don't think I have anyone in my family to handle it properly. I'd rather pay the bank 1% a year and know the majority of the money is actually going for my own children's health, education, and maintenance.
+1
My half-brother was trustee of his father's trust, which covered him and 2 older brothers. They spent the endless hours of leisure the trust offered them wheedling for more money, complaining that there wasn't as much money as there should have been (he had had to pay estate taxes, something wholly incomprehensible to them), begging, and ovulating weird potential future lives for him to fund. He discovered that Messrs Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith would accept the trusteeship and devolved it on them. MLPF&S took all the flak, doled out the money quarterly with flinty fairness, and quickly trained the older brothers to shut up, as no noise no matter how mewling or plangent would soften their iron corporate heart. Go for it. The bank should have someone calm, grayish, experienced, and polite, able when necessary to present when necessary a heart of whole and entire stone to the most grasping relatives.
Sir, your way with words is very enjoyable....
There are more candidates, but you get the idea . . . I just don't think I have anyone in my family to handle it properly. I'd rather pay the bank 1% a year and know the majority of the money is actually going for my own children's health, education, and maintenance.
+1
My half-brother was trustee of his father's trust, which covered him and 2 older brothers. They spent the endless hours of leisure the trust offered them wheedling for more money, complaining that there wasn't as much money as there should have been (he had had to pay estate taxes, something wholly incomprehensible to them), begging, and ovulating weird potential future lives for him to fund. He discovered that Messrs Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith would accept the trusteeship and devolved it on them. MLPF&S took all the flak, doled out the money quarterly with flinty fairness, and quickly trained the older brothers to shut up, as no noise no matter how mewling or plangent would soften their iron corporate heart. Go for it. The bank should have someone calm, grayish, experienced, and polite, able when necessary to present when necessary a heart of whole and entire stone to the most grasping relatives.
Pray tell what did MLPF&S charge for this service?
+1
My half-brother was trustee of his father's trust, which covered him and 2 older brothers. They spent the endless hours of leisure the trust offered them wheedling for more money, complaining that there wasn't as much money as there should have been (he had had to pay estate taxes, something wholly incomprehensible to them), begging, and ovulating weird potential future lives for him to fund. He discovered that Messrs Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith would accept the trusteeship and devolved it on them. MLPF&S took all the flak, doled out the money quarterly with flinty fairness, and quickly trained the older brothers to shut up, as no noise no matter how mewling or plangent would soften their iron corporate heart. Go for it. The bank should have someone calm, grayish, experienced, and polite, able when necessary to present when necessary a heart of whole and entire stone to the most grasping relatives.
So now I am concerned about something else: my own will has Granny Grace listed as managing the trust for my kids if I die before they are adults. I'm going to have to get the bank to do it, apparently, as she is now confirmed as both incompetent and dishonest. Sigh. I won't go into the reasons why I don't want my brother or other relatives to handle it . . . the bank it is!
Oh come on now, tell us the reasons. You know we live vicariously.
The issue is mostly the sheer sum of money, but combines with the needs and judgement of my relatives. If I kick off on my way to the pitch tonight, or any time in the next decade, then each of my children will inherit about $1MM between assets and insurance. That is a decent chunk of money.
The other parent of my spawn has been out of work for nearly a year and is devolving into serious financial trouble. Any money would be used selfishly on what I consider a ridiculous lifestyle while rationalizing that it is really being spent for the kids. I am certain of this. So, other parent is out, as are grandparents on that side, who would just funnel all of the money to other parent to fritter without hesitation.
My Mom, aka Granny Grace, is the current trust holder (trustee?) but it turns out she is completely dishonest, as noted above, and possibly losing her marbles, so she is out. I just have to get someone at the bank to help me set up the new trust (I did go by my credit union the other day, but the guy who does that was out of the office. Sigh.)
One of my brothers and his wife run a charity of sorts. I am concerned that they will see this sum of money and think it could be much better spent on those who benefit from their charity. They are probably right . . . but it is my wish to leave it to my heirs. I also think they will find it unfair that my children have access to so much money while their own children will be scrabbling to get started on their own. Also, as far as I know, they have nothing saved for retirement. If they had just a couple of children, then I would probably split the sum between my own children and my nieces and nephews and not worry about it. But, I have 10 nieces and nephews (and counting), so that divides the money too thinly imho and it is not going to work for me.
My Dad is broke and will work until he dies. His wife has several adult children who are not in good financial positions (she has declared bankruptcy herself, some of her children have bankruptcies or felony convictions in their pasts). Again, I am concerned that the money would be misspent either on their retirement or on her adult children.
There are more candidates, but you get the idea . . . I just don't think I have anyone in my family to handle it properly. I'd rather pay the bank 1% a year and know the majority of the money is actually going for my own children's health, education, and maintenance.
Pray tell what did MLPF&S charge for this service?
+1
My half-brother was trustee of his father's trust, which covered him and 2 older brothers. They spent the endless hours of leisure the trust offered them wheedling for more money, complaining that there wasn't as much money as there should have been (he had had to pay estate taxes, something wholly incomprehensible to them), begging, and ovulating weird potential future lives for him to fund. He discovered that Messrs Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith would accept the trusteeship and devolved it on them. MLPF&S took all the flak, doled out the money quarterly with flinty fairness, and quickly trained the older brothers to shut up, as no noise no matter how mewling or plangent would soften their iron corporate heart. Go for it. The bank should have someone calm, grayish, experienced, and polite, able when necessary to present when necessary a heart of whole and entire stone to the most grasping relatives.
And trained the brothers, but how?
I'D charge per bleat/whine out of their allotment.
I'm not a fan of 3d party oversight of money, but this seems like a good deal.
I am surprised you are giving her enough to hang herself.Pray tell what did MLPF&S charge for this service?
+1
My half-brother was trustee of his father's trust, which covered him and 2 older brothers. They spent the endless hours of leisure the trust offered them wheedling for more money, complaining that there wasn't as much money as there should have been (he had had to pay estate taxes, something wholly incomprehensible to them), begging, and ovulating weird potential future lives for him to fund. He discovered that Messrs Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith would accept the trusteeship and devolved it on them. MLPF&S took all the flak, doled out the money quarterly with flinty fairness, and quickly trained the older brothers to shut up, as no noise no matter how mewling or plangent would soften their iron corporate heart. Go for it. The bank should have someone calm, grayish, experienced, and polite, able when necessary to present when necessary a heart of whole and entire stone to the most grasping relatives.
And trained the brothers, but how?
I'D charge per bleat/whine out of their allotment.
I'm not a fan of 3d party oversight of money, but this seems like a good deal.
I too am looking for third-party oversight of trust money for my daughter. She will inherit half my pension, which will make her instantly FI if she keeps her expenses low, but she generally doesn't because she is influenced by her lowlife entourage.
Pray tell what did MLPF&S charge for this service?I don't know what they charged. By the time he shifted the trusteeship to them, I think my half-brother would have regarded about any fee as warranted, even cheap. As to their technique, I used something similar on my kids. "Daddy, X did this and you never...." "What?" Very distinctly: "Daddy, X did this and you never...." "What's that?" Exasperated: "Daddy, X did this and you..." "Could you speak up?" Other child, resignedly: "Daddy can't hear whining and tattling." So MLPF&S, in a mid-Victorian way: "We are in receipt of your letter and call of the 19th, for which thanks. Per the terms of the trust, the next disbursement will be made December 31st. Sincerely,..." Lather rinse repeat, though I would suppose from time to time even the most affably droning MLPF&S personage would have been tempted to close the letter by writing "With hearty conviction and deep sincerity." It was pure Skinnerianism and the brothers were as bright as any cheery young pigeons. Enough experiences pecking at the corporate button and receiving no money pellets whatever, and they got the idea.
And trained the brothers, but how?
I'D charge per bleat/whine out of their allotment.
I'm not a fan of 3d party oversight of money, but this seems like a good deal.
...I ran into a similar situation advising an ex-girlfriend about how to provide for her child. My suggestion to her - similar to you based only on what you wrote - was a term life insurance policy which contained enough to pay off the god-parent's house immediately, pay tuition and living for private school, day care, and college for the god-parent's kids as well as her child, a stipend for living expenses, etc, the policy to be continued by her until her kid graduated or failed out. Term life is cheap, amazingly cheap, even for a policy like this that would have run to a payout well over a million. It has to be explained to the god-parent what the idea is behind the payout, and maybe they'll listen and act as you hope and maybe they won't. If you know they just can't do as you direct, it would be possible to set up a trust to receive the proceeds, and direct the (third-party) trustee in how to dispose of it, ie, directly payoff the godparent's house, reimburse payments for the other expenses, send the monthly stipend, etc. This would leave your regular estate untouched.
We have accepted this situation. If we both die, our estate goes into trust for our kids, but the trustee is the same person who would be raising the kids and I'm sure she would spend down every penny of it before they turned 18, and they would get nothing at that point.
I am surprised you are giving her enough to hang herself.Pray tell what did MLPF&S charge for this service?
+1
My half-brother was trustee of his father's trust, which covered him and 2 older brothers. They spent the endless hours of leisure the trust offered them wheedling for more money, complaining that there wasn't as much money as there should have been (he had had to pay estate taxes, something wholly incomprehensible to them), begging, and ovulating weird potential future lives for him to fund. He discovered that Messrs Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith would accept the trusteeship and devolved it on them. MLPF&S took all the flak, doled out the money quarterly with flinty fairness, and quickly trained the older brothers to shut up, as no noise no matter how mewling or plangent would soften their iron corporate heart. Go for it. The bank should have someone calm, grayish, experienced, and polite, able when necessary to present when necessary a heart of whole and entire stone to the most grasping relatives.
And trained the brothers, but how?
I'D charge per bleat/whine out of their allotment.
I'm not a fan of 3d party oversight of money, but this seems like a good deal.
I too am looking for third-party oversight of trust money for my daughter. She will inherit half my pension, which will make her instantly FI if she keeps her expenses low, but she generally doesn't because she is influenced by her lowlife entourage.
She's still learning budgeting and financial responsibility (and is actually making some progress) and it should be another 20 years or so before I kick off and the pension half becomes available.
Hopefully she will have some basic skills by that point.
She's still learning budgeting and financial responsibility (and is actually making some progress) and it should be another 20 years or so before I kick off and the pension half becomes available.
Hopefully she will have some basic skills by that point.
GS, you are the most sensible level-headed person on here!!!! You know you could be hit (fatally) by a bus tomorrow.
She's still learning budgeting and financial responsibility (and is actually making some progress) and it should be another 20 years or so before I kick off and the pension half becomes available.
Hopefully she will have some basic skills by that point.
GS, you are the most sensible level-headed person on here!!!! You know you could be hit (fatally) by a bus tomorrow.
Of course. In which case, the value of my pension will be zero.
Edited to add: if I kick off today, the only way anyone besides me would get a cent out of the pension would be if I were married. I'm not. I don't get to declare a contingent survivor until I actually retire.
What I'd really like to do is leave every cent, house and all, to my loyal Venomous Spaz Beast, who deserves to live out her life in comfort in the only home she knows. Trouble is, she needs a human to feed her, walk her, and fit in playtime around whatever other life they have. If I can find a reliable human, I'll leave them a paid-off house and an allowance, on the condition that the VSB lives there, sees the vet regularly, and lives out the rest of her natural life in comfort. If the VSB dies, the allowance stops but the caregiver gains title to the house.
Bank or trust company for asset management and someone you trust to look after VSB?
Bank or trust company for asset management and someone you trust to look after VSB?
Something like that.
My daughter's been a bit of a brat, ergo both she and my niece are on the shit list despite the fact that my niece is considerate, kind, and a person who genuinely gives a fuck about what happens to me and to them (and who is capable of managing a lump sum windfall-- she may just have VSB guardian potential).
Well, my niece has a gigantic and spastic puppy at the moment. Until that doggo mellows out enough to play nicely with the VSB it may not be a go. I'm definitely keeping my eye on the situation. Long-term, the potential is there.Bank or trust company for asset management and someone you trust to look after VSB?
Something like that.
My daughter's been a bit of a brat, ergo both she and my niece are on the shit list despite the fact that my niece is considerate, kind, and a person who genuinely gives a fuck about what happens to me and to them (and who is capable of managing a lump sum windfall-- she may just have VSB guardian potential).
Isn't it amazing how clear things become when they are written out? You have found VSB's potential guardian. No-one else qualifies, she does.
The rest of the nonsense - yikes.Normal codependent crap in a family with addiction and untreated mental illness, I'm afraid. I'd have succumbed myself if I hadn't buggered off to Yankistan. Oddly, they weren't at all messed up when we were little. They got that way somehow.
Well, my niece has a gigantic and spastic puppy at the moment. Until that doggo mellows out enough to play nicely with the VSB it may not be a go. I'm definitely keeping my eye on the situation. Long-term, the potential is there.Quote
Well, absent the unexpected bus, this is long term planning, right? And wills made for the near future can always be adjusted as the situation changes. I find often that it's the big galumphy dogs are the ones that are best with small dogs. I love the thought she has a gigantic spastic puppy.
I've insisted that my sister and BIL write down their intention for me to take their VSB, because I can see a custody battle in that situation.
Future custody battle participants:
-Our parents, who have eventually taken every dog they've ever had to a shelter
-BIL's mom and stepdad, who have two overweight and poorly-behaved beasts of their own. They don't believe in walking their SHELTIES because they don't think they need the exercise.
-BIL's dad, who doesn't particularly like dogs, but would fight for the sake of fighting
So you can see how my family of three dog lovers who believe in walking dogs might be the preference.
I've insisted that my sister and BIL write down their intention for me to take their VSB, because I can see a custody battle in that situation.
Future custody battle participants:
-Our parents, who have eventually taken every dog they've ever had to a shelter
-BIL's mom and stepdad, who have two overweight and poorly-behaved beasts of their own. They don't believe in walking their SHELTIES because they don't think they need the exercise.
-BIL's dad, who doesn't particularly like dogs, but would fight for the sake of fighting
So you can see how my family of three dog lovers who believe in walking dogs might be the preference.
I still remember dogsitting a friend's dog (who was obese) and asking what their walk schedule was, they said that (overweight dog) "doesn't like walks". I thought that strange because i've never met a dog who didn't like walks. Sure enough on her daily walks, she was super happy, and got some exercise to boot. But it was apparent they never gave her walks : (
And I'm not even sure how this proposed plan would work out, logistically. Can the parents legally buy their daughter's home without an open competitive bid process, in which they might lose the house or bankrupt themselves to acquire it? What happens when the daughter fails to make payments, if anything? If the payments are based on below-market interest rate, they'll be depleting the inheritance for every kid, in order to support just one kid, and I'm pretty sure that is not their intention.
Unless you live in a weird market, house sales don't have to have competitive bid processes. They never have to be "on the market" to be eligible for sale. They don't have to sell at market rate even.
Massive snip.........
In either case, we'll end up having to go through 3 or 4 storage units of "antiques" or just let the units go.
What if the parents own the house, and the rent from the daughter goes to the other children?
I think it is a mistake to think of parent's money as your inheritance until they are dead.
From the micro-perspective, leaving your estate to grand children ensures that assets go through probate every 50-60 years instead of every 25.
From the macro-perspective, I think it gets into all of these issues with estate tax, inherited wealth, and an aristocratic class that are best left to another thread.
It's a complicated situation. The idea is for the daughter to "rent to own" so that she can continue to live in the house that currently owns, but cannot afford, without sending that money out of the family. Sending it to the other children directly would a) probably breed resentment on the part of the daughter, having to pay her siblings to live in her own house when her siblings didn't do a damn thing for her, and b) probably cause the other siblings to re-evaluate their financial expectations about their parents passing on, because it would effectively be kind of like getting your inheritance early. They would get "rent" now but then nothing upon their passing, and the unstable daughter would get a free house out of the deal.it's not complicated at all; the parents are going to subsidize one daughter so she can maintain a lifestyle she can not afford. The parents hope this will be corrected with the inheritance when they die. This will not happen. When it is time for the inheritance there will be a lot of drama and the end result of all of it will be that the one daughter will have gotten a bigger share of the inheritance then the other siblings. The family will probably splinter because of this with siblings no longer speaking to each other.
From the micro-perspective, leaving your estate to grand children ensures that assets go through probate every 50-60 years instead of every 25.
The transfers would happen every time a generation dies, regardless of who the inheritance goes to.
From the micro-perspective, leaving your estate to grand children ensures that assets go through probate every 50-60 years instead of every 25.
The transfers would happen every time a generation dies, regardless of who the inheritance goes to.
If assets go to grandchildren, the time interval between testator's death and heir's death is roughly twice as long as if the assets go to the testator's children.
Yeah for whatever reason people are weird about housing, and it somehow doesn't count as a subsidy to which you're supposed to assign a dollar value.It's a complicated situation. The idea is for the daughter to "rent to own" so that she can continue to live in the house that currently owns, but cannot afford, without sending that money out of the family. Sending it to the other children directly would a) probably breed resentment on the part of the daughter, having to pay her siblings to live in her own house when her siblings didn't do a damn thing for her, and b) probably cause the other siblings to re-evaluate their financial expectations about their parents passing on, because it would effectively be kind of like getting your inheritance early. They would get "rent" now but then nothing upon their passing, and the unstable daughter would get a free house out of the deal.it's not complicated at all; the parents are going to subsidize one daughter so she can maintain a lifestyle she can not afford. The parents hope this will be corrected with the inheritance when they die. This will not happen. When it is time for the inheritance there will be a lot of drama and the end result of all of it will be that the one daughter will have gotten a bigger share of the inheritance then the other siblings. The family will probably splinter because of this with siblings no longer speaking to each other.
It is their money and the parents can do with it whatever they want. But these will be the ultimate consequences if they chose this particular path. If they are fine with that, great. If not, they might better look for another solution.
From the micro-perspective, leaving your estate to grand children ensures that assets go through probate every 50-60 years instead of every 25.
The transfers would happen every time a generation dies, regardless of who the inheritance goes to.
If assets go to grandchildren, the time interval between testator's death and heir's death is roughly twice as long as if the assets go to the testator's children.
From the micro-perspective, leaving your estate to grand children ensures that assets go through probate every 50-60 years instead of every 25.
The transfers would happen every time a generation dies, regardless of who the inheritance goes to.
If assets go to grandchildren, the time interval between testator's death and heir's death is roughly twice as long as if the assets go to the testator's children.
Consider, though, that we're talking about a whole train of generations. So gen1 passes on to gen3 rather than gen2. Then gen 3 to gen 5, etc. So it looks like there's half as much probating and so on. But gen2 passes on to gen 4 who passes on to gen6... Any individual pot of money gets passed on half as often but the pot is effectively halved because it's split over two generational sequences.
This is right on the money.It's a complicated situation. The idea is for the daughter to "rent to own" so that she can continue to live in the house that currently owns, but cannot afford, without sending that money out of the family. Sending it to the other children directly would a) probably breed resentment on the part of the daughter, having to pay her siblings to live in her own house when her siblings didn't do a damn thing for her, and b) probably cause the other siblings to re-evaluate their financial expectations about their parents passing on, because it would effectively be kind of like getting your inheritance early. They would get "rent" now but then nothing upon their passing, and the unstable daughter would get a free house out of the deal.it's not complicated at all; the parents are going to subsidize one daughter so she can maintain a lifestyle she can not afford. The parents hope this will be corrected with the inheritance when they die. This will not happen. When it is time for the inheritance there will be a lot of drama and the end result of all of it will be that the one daughter will have gotten a bigger share of the inheritance then the other siblings. The family will probably splinter because of this with siblings no longer speaking to each other.
It is their money and the parents can do with it whatever they want. But these will be the ultimate consequences if they chose this particular path. If they are fine with that, great. If not, they might better look for another solution.
If assets go to grandchildren, the time interval between testator's death and heir's death is roughly twice as long as if the assets go to the testator's children.From the micro-perspective, leaving your estate to grand children ensures that assets go through probate every 50-60 years instead of every 25.
The transfers would happen every time a generation dies, regardless of who the inheritance goes to.
I'm not a Trump fan, but it is nice that the estate tax threshold has been raised. No state estate tax here either.
I'm not a Trump fan, but it is nice that the estate tax threshold has been raised. No state estate tax here either.When my grandfather died in the late eighties, he gave my family $50k - $14k to my parents and $6k to each of the six kids. The rest of his estate was divided evenly among his three elderly sisters. I thought this was fantastic. Each grandkid got a boost (I added it to my DP fund and finally pulled the trigger on my first house). More importantly, he gave his sisters financial security in their old age. What an amazing legacy!
I think individual circumstances, like total amounts involved and the ages of the various generations have an impact on how these decisions "should" be made.
My grandparents lived to be quite old (mid 90's), and left everything to their 2 sons who were in their mid to late 70's. It was the standard simple way to pass their assets, but really didn't benefit anyone that was young enough to enjoy, or even handle the finances, at that point. Sadly, interest rates were so low dad just cashed the check & piled it all in a safe...it would have tripled if he'd known about VTSAX.
There's definitely a valid argument about not leaving it to those who are too young, but also to those that are too old. I doubt many wills & trusts are adequately engineered to deal with the ages of the beneficiaries, because it's just too complicated to deal with for most people.
I'm not a Trump fan, but it is nice that the estate tax threshold has been raised. No state estate tax here either.
Really? The TCJA doubled the exemptions from $5.5MM per taxpayer ($11MM per couple) to $11MM ($22MM per couple). Is estate tax really something that anyone on this forum would ever have to worry about?
I'm not a Trump fan, but it is nice that the estate tax threshold has been raised. No state estate tax here either.
Really? The TCJA doubled the exemptions from $5.5MM per taxpayer ($11MM per couple) to $11MM ($22MM per couple). Is estate tax really something that anyone on this forum would ever have to worry about?
Farmers? They are usually land rich and cash poor.
I'm not a Trump fan, but it is nice that the estate tax threshold has been raised. No state estate tax here either.
Really? The TCJA doubled the exemptions from $5.5MM per taxpayer ($11MM per couple) to $11MM ($22MM per couple). Is estate tax really something that anyone on this forum would ever have to worry about?
I don't know what it's like overseas (and am not sure I understand it here!) but my parents are in their sixties and diligently over-saved before retiring. I believe they are planning to write something like a writ of disbursement so that when my grandmother dies, their portion of the inheritance passes straight to me and my brother. As I understand it, that means that for tax purposes it's as if my grandmother willed it straight to us. They don't need the money and we're in our twenties so even if it's all spent way down on end of life care, even a few thousand would make a difference to our lives while my parents wouldn't even notice it. Assuming the age situation is similar when my parents go, I would probably do the same.
PhilB is a prince amoung men!Aw shucks...
We had a screaming blowout this morning about how even if it gets sent back here that she'll turn it over to my uncle.
I got one for you. When my grandmother died 15-ish years ago, the only thing I inherited was a ring. I'm not really a jewelry type of girl, especially yellow gold, but I've loved this one since I was a kid. When I divorced my first husband I gave it to my parents to put in their safe deposit box. Apparently, sometime last week my uncle called my mom and told her that ring belonged to his late second wife and my grandmother had it to keep the third wife from getting it. It's worth noting that he and the third wife didn't split up until after my grandparents were both gone. I suspect that he eants to give it to wife-to-be #4 as an engagement ring. Well, he said jump and my mom asked how high. She shipped it off without saying a word to me. I probably wouldn't have found out until I asked for it back except that she shipped it into the middle of a damn hurricane. It's now "lost" and she can't find the tracking number. We had a screaming blowout this morning about how even if it gets sent back here that she'll turn it over to my uncle. Fun times.
I got one for you. When my grandmother died 15-ish years ago, the only thing I inherited was a ring. I'm not really a jewelry type of girl, especially yellow gold, but I've loved this one since I was a kid. When I divorced my first husband I gave it to my parents to put in their safe deposit box. Apparently, sometime last week my uncle called my mom and told her that ring belonged to his late second wife and my grandmother had it to keep the third wife from getting it. It's worth noting that he and the third wife didn't split up until after my grandparents were both gone. I suspect that he eants to give it to wife-to-be #4 as an engagement ring. Well, he said jump and my mom asked how high. She shipped it off without saying a word to me. I probably wouldn't have found out until I asked for it back except that she shipped it into the middle of a damn hurricane. It's now "lost" and she can't find the tracking number. We had a screaming blowout this morning about how even if it gets sent back here that she'll turn it over to my uncle. Fun times.
You think that's bad?
My dad went into the hospital. While he was there my mom took his cat to the vet and had it killed.
She did not enjoy the conversation when she told me what she had done.
I realize you're leaving a lot out, but the inability to compromise or accept anything in place of those two very special figures is a sign of someone who's causing drama rather than seeking to preserve the family through it.
That is absolutely scorched earth divorce worthy behavior. You don't mess with my animals.
You think that's bad?
My dad went into the hospital. While he was there my mom took his cat to the vet and had it killed.
She did not enjoy the conversation when she told me what she had done.
Just, wow !!! And so :(
That is absolutely scorched earth divorce worthy behavior. You don't mess with my animals.
Indeed. Last time something messed with my chickens, I turned into John Wick with tits. As in, I got out a jo staff and went medieval.
I can't imagine what I'd do to anyone who threatened my Venomous Spaz Beast. It wouldn't be pretty.
Just because the majority of the members on this forum are trying to retire young doen't mean all of our parents and/or grandparents understood the concept. It seems that a lot of people who build businesses enjoy "being the boss" and enjoy watching the money flow in. Instead of saving 70% of their salaries and investing it in index funds they invested in their own companies. Their investments often beat the S&P 500 each and every year (but it wasn't passive). When you hear stories about successful companies you only hear about the ones that got big, but there are millions of companies that are very successful that never even wanted to grow beyond a handful of employees and a single location. The owner made plenty for himself and didn't want the headaches of going after more. I've met plenty of small business owners that told me that they were happier and made more money when they had fewer employees.
Woman was anticipating bankruptcy proceedings due to a bad business deal. She became aware that MIL was planning to leave her a decent sum of money, and didn't want to lose potential inheritance (which wasn't enough to keep the business deal from imploding) to the bank, so MIL's will was rewritten to leave the money to the grown grandkids, instead, with the unwritten agreement that the money would be gifted to their mother after bankruptcy to help her get back on her feet (she did lose most of her assets, including her house). Indeed, MIL ended up passing in the midst of the bankruptcy, but the inheritance went safely to the grandkids instead of being hoovered up by the bank.
Two of the four kids reneged on the deal, and spent the money frivolously while their mother suffered financial and personal hardship. Mother subsequently has regained her footing, at least somewhat, and plans to make up the difference in her own will. Of course, that's without regard to inflation or lost opportunity cost over a period of decades (at least, I hope so), so the selfish kids come out ahead financially in either case.
Woman was anticipating bankruptcy proceedings due to a bad business deal. She became aware that MIL was planning to leave her a decent sum of money, and didn't want to lose potential inheritance (which wasn't enough to keep the business deal from imploding) to the bank, so MIL's will was rewritten to leave the money to the grown grandkids, instead, with the unwritten agreement that the money would be gifted to their mother after bankruptcy to help her get back on her feet (she did lose most of her assets, including her house). Indeed, MIL ended up passing in the midst of the bankruptcy, but the inheritance went safely to the grandkids instead of being hoovered up by the bank.
Two of the four kids reneged on the deal, and spent the money frivolously while their mother suffered financial and personal hardship. Mother subsequently has regained her footing, at least somewhat, and plans to make up the difference in her own will. Of course, that's without regard to inflation or lost opportunity cost over a period of decades (at least, I hope so), so the selfish kids come out ahead financially in either case.
I mean, I guess the kids are selfish, but I read the first paragraph assuming you were calling out the mother. What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.
What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
Is the bar so low now that illegal activities are okay?What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
Why would they give her money when she is unwilling to give money to people she owes?
What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
How is it illegal? My reading of the story is that the woman's mother changed her will of her own accord so as not to leave any money to her. Anyone can change their will at any time. There is no "right to inherit" until someone dies - there is no prospective right to an inheritance which can be enforced in court, for instance to stop someone changing their will. Is their? So if the woman never had a right to her mother's money, how could her debtors have any right to it? And if the debtors had no rights, there can be no fraud.I'm having the same trouble squaring that circle as well. I have no issue with discussing the moral angle, but I fail to see how it's illegal. If I stated my intention to donate money to a charity, and then found out that they were about to enter bankruptcy, would it also be illegal to change my mind and not donate to them?
If the woman had the money and gave it away, sure. Or if her mother had already died and the woman refused the inheritance she was due under the will, also legally not on, under bankruptcy laws. But someone's parent choosing to change their will before they died? I don't see the legal problem.
What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
How is it illegal? My reading of the story is that the woman's mother changed her will of her own accord so as not to leave any money to her. Anyone can change their will at any time. There is no "right to inherit" until someone dies - there is no prospective right to an inheritance which can be enforced in court, for instance to stop someone changing their will. Is their? So if the woman never had a right to her mother's money, how could her debtors have any right to it? And if the debtors had no rights, there can be no fraud.
If the woman had the money and gave it away, sure. Or if her mother had already died and the woman refused the inheritance she was due under the will, also legally not on, under bankruptcy laws. But someone's parent choosing to change their will before they died? I don't see the legal problem.
Yeah, it sounds like constructive fraud to me, even if she did straight Chapter 7 bankruptcy.What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
How is it illegal? My reading of the story is that the woman's mother changed her will of her own accord so as not to leave any money to her. Anyone can change their will at any time. There is no "right to inherit" until someone dies - there is no prospective right to an inheritance which can be enforced in court, for instance to stop someone changing their will. Is their? So if the woman never had a right to her mother's money, how could her debtors have any right to it? And if the debtors had no rights, there can be no fraud.
If the woman had the money and gave it away, sure. Or if her mother had already died and the woman refused the inheritance she was due under the will, also legally not on, under bankruptcy laws. But someone's parent choosing to change their will before they died? I don't see the legal problem.
It's illegal because the will was changed entirely to avoid having that money available to creditors and yet the inheritance to the kids wasn't supposed to be real because they were supposed to funnel it back to mom. They were expected to hold the money while mom's bankruptcy was finalized, then give it back, basically hiding it from creditors and the bankruptcy courts. It would be like a man having a friend hide his collection of fancy watches or a woman hide expensive jewels during divorce proceedings, then getting them back when they were no longer subject to community property divisions. The point is to mislead and hide assets, and thus it is fraudulent.
Changing the will to leave money to the kids instead of the mom isn't illegal. Doing to for the purposes of hiding the money from courts and creditors, and with the expectation that it be returned when the danger of having it seized was over, almost certainly is illegal. The money was still supposed to go to mom, just in a way that hid it from creditors.
If she were hiding her own assets then I could see how that was fraud. Since the money was never legally hers, I don't see how this is fraud. I know of a situation right now where a guy is being charged criminally with causing the death of someone during the commission of another crime. The family is likely to sue him civilly as well. He has no money of his own, but comes from a well-off family. His family's wills have now been changed to pass any share of his parents' estates to his kids rather than to him, essentially making him judgement proof. I don't see how this is any different.
What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
How is it illegal? My reading of the story is that the woman's mother changed her will of her own accord so as not to leave any money to her. Anyone can change their will at any time. There is no "right to inherit" until someone dies - there is no prospective right to an inheritance which can be enforced in court, for instance to stop someone changing their will. Is their? So if the woman never had a right to her mother's money, how could her debtors have any right to it? And if the debtors had no rights, there can be no fraud.
If the woman had the money and gave it away, sure. Or if her mother had already died and the woman refused the inheritance she was due under the will, also legally not on, under bankruptcy laws. But someone's parent choosing to change their will before they died? I don't see the legal problem.
It's illegal because the will was changed entirely to avoid having that money available to creditors and yet the inheritance to the kids wasn't supposed to be real because they were supposed to funnel it back to mom. They were expected to hold the money while mom's bankruptcy was finalized, then give it back, basically hiding it from creditors and the bankruptcy courts. It would be like a man having a friend hide his collection of fancy watches or a woman hide expensive jewels during divorce proceedings, then getting them back when they were no longer subject to community property divisions. The point is to mislead and hide assets, and thus it is fraudulent.
Changing the will to leave money to the kids instead of the mom isn't illegal. Doing to for the purposes of hiding the money from courts and creditors, and with the expectation that it be returned when the danger of having it seized was over, almost certainly is illegal. The money was still supposed to go to mom, just in a way that hid it from creditors.
I think you're right that it isn't actual fraud under 541(a) because of the definition of "property" to include rights to inheritance within 180 days after filing and the mom didn't die here. It still seems like there'd be a constructive fraud case here. To get federal benefits they would definitely be looking at this.What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
How is it illegal? My reading of the story is that the woman's mother changed her will of her own accord so as not to leave any money to her. Anyone can change their will at any time. There is no "right to inherit" until someone dies - there is no prospective right to an inheritance which can be enforced in court, for instance to stop someone changing their will. Is their? So if the woman never had a right to her mother's money, how could her debtors have any right to it? And if the debtors had no rights, there can be no fraud.
If the woman had the money and gave it away, sure. Or if her mother had already died and the woman refused the inheritance she was due under the will, also legally not on, under bankruptcy laws. But someone's parent choosing to change their will before they died? I don't see the legal problem.
It's illegal because the will was changed entirely to avoid having that money available to creditors and yet the inheritance to the kids wasn't supposed to be real because they were supposed to funnel it back to mom. They were expected to hold the money while mom's bankruptcy was finalized, then give it back, basically hiding it from creditors and the bankruptcy courts. It would be like a man having a friend hide his collection of fancy watches or a woman hide expensive jewels during divorce proceedings, then getting them back when they were no longer subject to community property divisions. The point is to mislead and hide assets, and thus it is fraudulent.
Changing the will to leave money to the kids instead of the mom isn't illegal. Doing to for the purposes of hiding the money from courts and creditors, and with the expectation that it be returned when the danger of having it seized was over, almost certainly is illegal. The money was still supposed to go to mom, just in a way that hid it from creditors.
Right. But a person administering a bankruptcy only has the right to assets of the bankrupt, and the mother's money was never an asset of the bankrupt at any point. So how was there any right at any time for the person administering the bankrupt to stop the mother from doing whatever she wanted to? If there had been a formal trust in the will for the benefit of the bankrupt then as soon as the mother died there would have been an asset to go into the bankruptcy. But if it was only an informal set of wishes that the grandchildren should pass the money back to the mother not amounting to anything which was a legal trust, surely not. And given that two of the grandchildren ignored the wishes and took the money, it does seem that it was just a wish, not a legally enforceable trust that the bankruptcy administrator could have got their hands on.
Conspiracy is generally illegal. Any time you ned to keep something secret in order to get an advantage over a third party, you probably are breaking the law. Do you think this lady is the smartest woman ever and invented a new way to hide assets? Everything was legal up to the point where there was an agreement that the money was to be returned to the mom. As soon as that agreement was made, it was a conspiracy and gets dodgy.How is it illegal? My reading of the story is that the woman's mother changed her will of her own accord so as not to leave any money to her. Anyone can change their will at any time. There is no "right to inherit" until someone dies - there is no prospective right to an inheritance which can be enforced in court, for instance to stop someone changing their will. Is their? So if the woman never had a right to her mother's money, how could her debtors have any right to it? And if the debtors had no rights, there can be no fraud.I'm having the same trouble squaring that circle as well. I have no issue with discussing the moral angle, but I fail to see how it's illegal. If I stated my intention to donate money to a charity, and then found out that they were about to enter bankruptcy, would it also be illegal to change my mind and not donate to them?
If the woman had the money and gave it away, sure. Or if her mother had already died and the woman refused the inheritance she was due under the will, also legally not on, under bankruptcy laws. But someone's parent choosing to change their will before they died? I don't see the legal problem.
The USA has a lot of laws that you don't need to be aware of; you just need to treat people honestly.
If she were hiding her own assets then I could see how that was fraud. Since the money was never legally hers, I don't see how this is fraud. I know of a situation right now where a guy is being charged criminally with causing the death of someone during the commission of another crime. The family is likely to sue him civilly as well. He has no money of his own, but comes from a well-off family. His family's wills have now been changed to pass any share of his parents' estates to his kids rather than to him, essentially making him judgement proof. I don't see how this is any different.
If she were hiding her own assets then I could see how that was fraud. Since the money was never legally hers, I don't see how this is fraud. I know of a situation right now where a guy is being charged criminally with causing the death of someone during the commission of another crime. The family is likely to sue him civilly as well. He has no money of his own, but comes from a well-off family. His family's wills have now been changed to pass any share of his parents' estates to his kids rather than to him, essentially making him judgement proof. I don't see how this is any different.
And if the true intention is for the kids to have and keep the money, then yes, there is no fraud. But that's where your example and that situation are different. In the original situation, the money never was truly for the kids. It was for the mom, but the kids were supposed to hold it until the danger was over, then give it back to the mom.
To go back to my example, it's not illegal for my bet friend to gift me all of her jewels. It is probably illegal for him to give them to me to stash in my jewelry draw and say they are mine, until her divorce is settled (and her husband can't take 50% of them) and then give them back to her.
Thank you, its a nice compliment to be a terrible rich person in todays world. (it really is a nice thing to say).The USA has a lot of laws that you don't need to be aware of; you just need to treat people honestly.
You will make a TERRIBLE rich person.
This one is so anti-dramatic it’s kind of funny.Totally worth it, IMO. Yay for family harmony.
Grandpa passed away recently without a will or named beneficiaries. Grandma died several years ago. Both sons (my dad and uncle) passed away a few years ago. So that leaves the grandkids to claim the inheritance. The problem is that all the grandkids are financially quite stable and no one wants to submit the loads of paperwork required to claim approx. $8000. In fact, by the time expenses are deducted there may not be that much money left. An email just went around to the grandkids, and each and every grand kid wasn’t like, “No thanks, but if you want to do the work, you deserve the money. I’m giving up my claim to the money.”
So the government is probably going to end up getting an $8000 donation to their coffers.
This one is so anti-dramatic it’s kind of funny.
Grandpa passed away recently without a will or named beneficiaries. Grandma died several years ago. Both sons (my dad and uncle) passed away a few years ago. So that leaves the grandkids to claim the inheritance. The problem is that all the grandkids are financially quite stable and no one wants to submit the loads of paperwork required to claim approx. $8000. In fact, by the time expenses are deducted there may not be that much money left. An email just went around to the grandkids, and each and every grand kid wasn’t like, “No thanks, but if you want to do the work, you deserve the money. I’m giving up my claim to the money.”
So the government is probably going to end up getting an $8000 donation to their coffers.
This one is so anti-dramatic it’s kind of funny.Totally worth it, IMO. Yay for family harmony.
Grandpa passed away recently without a will or named beneficiaries. Grandma died several years ago. Both sons (my dad and uncle) passed away a few years ago. So that leaves the grandkids to claim the inheritance. The problem is that all the grandkids are financially quite stable and no one wants to submit the loads of paperwork required to claim approx. $8000. In fact, by the time expenses are deducted there may not be that much money left. An email just went around to the grandkids, and each and every grand kid wasn’t like, “No thanks, but if you want to do the work, you deserve the money. I’m giving up my claim to the money.”
So the government is probably going to end up getting an $8000 donation to their coffers.
Ooh, I have one. I was contacted by an acquaintance that heard I was good at finding people (through Ancestry website, and on line searches).
It appears that the government contacted her when her cousin died without a will. They assigned a government person to clear the estate / debts, final tax return and pay funeral expenses. They want her to locate the heirs / relatives to help with dispersal of the estate.
The problem is that there is one younger brother, who moved to the US from Canada around the age of 22 when their dad died in 1977. The mom also passed in 2003. The brother had not been heard from by any other family since he moved to the USA.
Given a not-too common name for someone we estimated as age 65, I think I found him. AND, I found evidence that the mom was one of 21 brothers and sisters. OMG. There are likely over 50 first cousins out there... just on the maternal side, plus more on the paternal side (I could only find evidence of the father, who I think was born in another country, but nothing on the father's family).
The estate has about $30k in it, she thinks, maybe more.
My friend is trying to get ahold of the person I found, although any listed numbers are now old and out of service. She has no intention of doing anything more than trying to find the brother to let him know his sister died and how to claim any funds. I suggested the next step was to send a letter to each of the last 3 known addresses, and be done with it. (It may not be him after all).
If she can't find the brother, she will just let the remaining $30k+ go to the government.
This one is so anti-dramatic it’s kind of funny.Totally worth it, IMO. Yay for family harmony.
Grandpa passed away recently without a will or named beneficiaries. Grandma died several years ago. Both sons (my dad and uncle) passed away a few years ago. So that leaves the grandkids to claim the inheritance. The problem is that all the grandkids are financially quite stable and no one wants to submit the loads of paperwork required to claim approx. $8000. In fact, by the time expenses are deducted there may not be that much money left. An email just went around to the grandkids, and each and every grand kid wasn’t like, “No thanks, but if you want to do the work, you deserve the money. I’m giving up my claim to the money.”
So the government is probably going to end up getting an $8000 donation to their coffers.
Great story, but please reconsider. Instead, choose a non-profit your grandpa would have respected and transfer it to them.
Think of it this way. How many hours did your grandpa work to get that money? Isn't it worth a few more hours to turn that hard work into something your grandfather would have found to be worth his time?
Buy some playground equipment and install it in a nearby park. Every time you walk by, you will have great memories of your grandfather. Just 1 idea.
I thought it appropriate to add some levity to this thread.
Mom inherited a sugar cookie recipe with instructions that it was to STAY IN THE FAMILY. This became problematic when a dear friend and fellow cook, Julia, requested the recipe. Mom told the story and refused to share the recipe.
Turnabout is fair play and Julia had a recipe for mustard that was the envy of everyone. Julia succumbed to cancer and never did get around to sharing that mustard recipe with Mom.
I suspect that some feelings were genuinely hurt by this which is too bad because it is otherwise a great story!
PS. Julia was a professional cook and may not have been at liberty to share the mustard recipe anyway. RIP, Julia!
Definitely a "thing". It took me two decades to get a recipe out of one of my aunts - I still have her hand-written copy. I later found that the recipe was almost identical to one in a recipe book from 200 years earlier that was rediscovered long after I remember my aunt using the recipe.I thought it appropriate to add some levity to this thread.
Mom inherited a sugar cookie recipe with instructions that it was to STAY IN THE FAMILY. This became problematic when a dear friend and fellow cook, Julia, requested the recipe. Mom told the story and refused to share the recipe.
Turnabout is fair play and Julia had a recipe for mustard that was the envy of everyone. Julia succumbed to cancer and never did get around to sharing that mustard recipe with Mom.
I suspect that some feelings were genuinely hurt by this which is too bad because it is otherwise a great story!
PS. Julia was a professional cook and may not have been at liberty to share the mustard recipe anyway. RIP, Julia!
My sister was really upset when I shared a few family recipes outside the family. My Mom had never said anything about them being "family-only". So family-only recipes appear to be a "thing".
If you had a prize-winning recipe in the family in that environment, I could maybe see why you would want to hang on to it.
If you had a prize-winning recipe in the family in that environment, I could maybe see why you would want to hang on to it.
I can't. This seems like a net loss for society, like refusing to share your discovery of penicillin or the polio vaccine. If you have something amazing and it costs you nothing to make the world a better place, why would you bury it?
These days, the internet has successfully killed this sort of behaviour, and good riddance. The secret recipe for coke and KFC's 11 herbs and spices can be found online. America's test kitchen publishes the results of twenty different empanada recipes and documents why the differences change the food. Investors research your company's supply chain. It's much harder to keep secrets these days.
If you had a prize-winning recipe in the family in that environment, I could maybe see why you would want to hang on to it.
I can't. This seems like a net loss for society, like refusing to share your discovery of penicillin or the polio vaccine. If you have something amazing and it costs you nothing to make the world a better place, why would you bury it?
These days, the internet has successfully killed this sort of behaviour, and good riddance. The secret recipe for coke and KFC's 11 herbs and spices can be found online. America's test kitchen publishes the results of twenty different empanada recipes and documents why the differences change the food. Investors research your company's supply chain. It's much harder to keep secrets these days.
Totally. People ask me for recipes all the time. Especially my pumpkin pie and peanut butter cookie recipes. I'm like, "Take it! Go make ALL the delicious food!" Spread the gospel!"
If you had a prize-winning recipe in the family in that environment, I could maybe see why you would want to hang on to it.
I can't. This seems like a net loss for society, like refusing to share your discovery of penicillin or the polio vaccine. If you have something amazing and it costs you nothing to make the world a better place, why would you bury it?
These days, the internet has successfully killed this sort of behaviour, and good riddance. The secret recipe for coke and KFC's 11 herbs and spices can be found online. America's test kitchen publishes the results of twenty different empanada recipes and documents why the differences change the food. Investors research your company's supply chain. It's much harder to keep secrets these days.
What would be the point of hoarding recipes in a family? Attention? At least share with relatives and friends. Hopefully those who inherit the recipes would share more feely.
What would be the point of hoarding recipes in a family? Attention? At least share with relatives and friends. Hopefully those who inherit the recipes would share more feely.
Dunno, in high school I dated a guy whose family had a killer BBQ sauce recipe and everyone was supposedly sworn to secrecy of the highest order. Problem is, they were kinda messy. Every time they made up a batch, they left all the ingredients out on the counter. Duh.
Definitely a "thing". It took me two decades to get a recipe out of one of my aunts - I still have her hand-written copy. I later found that the recipe was almost identical to one in a recipe book from 200 years earlier that was rediscovered long after I remember my aunt using the recipe.I thought it appropriate to add some levity to this thread.
Mom inherited a sugar cookie recipe with instructions that it was to STAY IN THE FAMILY. This became problematic when a dear friend and fellow cook, Julia, requested the recipe. Mom told the story and refused to share the recipe.
Turnabout is fair play and Julia had a recipe for mustard that was the envy of everyone. Julia succumbed to cancer and never did get around to sharing that mustard recipe with Mom.
I suspect that some feelings were genuinely hurt by this which is too bad because it is otherwise a great story!
PS. Julia was a professional cook and may not have been at liberty to share the mustard recipe anyway. RIP, Julia!
My sister was really upset when I shared a few family recipes outside the family. My Mom had never said anything about them being "family-only". So family-only recipes appear to be a "thing".
What would be the point of hoarding recipes in a family? Attention? At least share with relatives and friends. Hopefully those who inherit the recipes would share more feely.
My mom always made the best chocolate chip cookies when I was younger. She had a "secret" that wasn't a big secret but I still use it today.Lol, I have all the ingredients in the pantry, including the pudding mix. Fun! Thank you, @Finallyunderstand!
The recipe itself is literally on the back of almost every bag of Nestle semi-sweet chocolate chip bags at any grocery store but her secret was adding one bag of instant vanilla pudding to the mix. Not actual pudding, just the powder. For some reason it makes them amazing. Who knows if this is a secret from our family or well known but everyone should try it. Also you take the cookies out about 1 minute too early for the perfect consistency after they cool. My wife says its the best chocolate chip cookie she ever had/has.
Secret is out now! Go forth and make cookies.
@RetiredAt63, I totally agree with you, especially for baked goods. But this was barbeque sauce, with about five ingredients. Not hard to figure out. For example, there was one lemon left out on the counter, but only one half was squeezed out thoroughly, the other was untouched. In the case of a simple sauce, a little deductive reasoning went a long way.Dunno, in high school I dated a guy whose family had a killer BBQ sauce recipe and everyone was supposedly sworn to secrecy of the highest order. Problem is, they were kinda messy. Every time they made up a batch, they left all the ingredients out on the counter. Duh.
It's not just the ingredients, they are just the starting point. It's quantities and how they are processed. Does the pastry recipe say that the water has to be super cold? My mom put the water for my grandmother's pastry recipe in the freezer when she started her prep. Cold water from the tap when the house is on a well is a lot colder than tap water when the house is on municipal water.
There was a time when a lot of recipes were a pinch of this and a palmfull of that and a cup of water (which cup did she use, coffee cup, tea cup?) and a chunk of butter the size of a hen's egg (how big an egg?). So you basically needed to be in the kitchen with the cook to really know the recipe.
Pie crust is a fun topic for this thread ;-). I haven't made it since I went gluten free, but my grandmother's recipe was fail-proof - as long as you did it right.
Barbecue sauce would be an easy one to at lest partly figure out. Some recipes are more forgiving than others.
My mom always made the best chocolate chip cookies when I was younger. She had a "secret" that wasn't a big secret but I still use it today.
The recipe itself is literally on the back of almost every bag of Nestle semi-sweet chocolate chip bags at any grocery store but her secret was adding one bag of instant vanilla pudding to the mix. Not actual pudding, just the powder. For some reason it makes them amazing. Who knows if this is a secret from our family or well known but everyone should try it. Also you take the cookies out about 1 minute too early for the perfect consistency after they cool. My wife says its the best chocolate chip cookie she ever had/has.
Secret is out now! Go forth and make cookies.
For pie crust, cold is definitely the way to go. Water with ice cubes (but no ice in the dough), flour stored in the fridge and blade/food processor bowl in the fridge for a bit to chill.
I thought it appropriate to add some levity to this thread.
Mom inherited a sugar cookie recipe with instructions that it was to STAY IN THE FAMILY. This became problematic when a dear friend and fellow cook, Julia, requested the recipe. Mom told the story and refused to share the recipe.
Turnabout is fair play and Julia had a recipe for mustard that was the envy of everyone. Julia succumbed to cancer and never did get around to sharing that mustard recipe with Mom.
I suspect that some feelings were genuinely hurt by this which is too bad because it is otherwise a great story!
PS. Julia was a professional cook and may not have been at liberty to share the mustard recipe anyway. RIP, Julia!
I'm not saying I agree with it. But in a traditional environment where "a woman's place was in the home" and one of the few public avenues for recognition of (and possible financial reward for) her creativity and ingenuity was through local cooking contests, I can see why some women would want to keep their recipes close to the vest, and encourage their children to do the same.
Cooking is a good skill but any skills for complicated topics would impress me as a dating male. She's good with computers? Or - she's good at gardening? Sewing? Carpentry? Big into bicycling or hiking?
To me this is a thinker who spent the time and made the effort to get good at something.
Cooking is a good skill but any skills for complicated topics would impress me as a dating male. She's good with computers? Or - she's good at gardening? Sewing? Carpentry? Big into bicycling or hiking?
To me this is a thinker who spent the time and made the effort to get good at something.
That is so true for me, too.
Competence is a really under-rated sexual attractiveness trait. At least by most people. I, on the other hand, find a woman becomes really unattractive to me very quickly if she's not competent at daily living and really good at one or more things.
I have a story about inheritance and Certain Precious China:Wow.
I have a story about inheritance and Certain Precious China:Wow.
Your mom's actions would have completely ruined any sentimental value that China had for me.
At that point, I would only pay money for it if it was going to turn a profit when I resold it. It would be valueless for me otherwise. I wouldn't want to eat off it it.
I don't know if it qualifies as a drama, but a couple I'm very good friends with got an inheritance from a relative who passed away recently. I don't know how much it was, but when they brought it up and mentioned that they weren't sure how to use it, I offered to show them how to open a retirement account or invest in index funds. That didn't sound very fun to them, so they ended up using it to go on 2-week European vacation, and have been on a buying binge ever since they got back with what I assume is the leftover cash. They're big advocates of retail therapy, you see--just a month or two ago (before they received the inheritance) they were upset because they overspent and had to borrow money from one of their parents. They also hate their jobs.
I wish I could have helped but I know if i pressed the issue beyond just offering to help them invest it they would be very offended (understandably). The vacation looked like a lot of fun, but still... seems like a squandered windfall, however much the inheritance was.
I don't know if it qualifies as a drama, but a couple I'm very good friends with got an inheritance from a relative who passed away recently. I don't know how much it was, but when they brought it up and mentioned that they weren't sure how to use it, I offered to show them how to open a retirement account or invest in index funds. That didn't sound very fun to them, so they ended up using it to go on 2-week European vacation, and have been on a buying binge ever since they got back with what I assume is the leftover cash. They're big advocates of retail therapy, you see--just a month or two ago (before they received the inheritance) they were upset because they overspent and had to borrow money from one of their parents. They also hate their jobs.
I wish I could have helped but I know if i pressed the issue beyond just offering to help them invest it they would be very offended (understandably). The vacation looked like a lot of fun, but still... seems like a squandered windfall, however much the inheritance was.
Be sure and update us when they (inevitably?) let people know how hard things are and that they don't have the money for 'X' necessity.
I don't know if it qualifies as a drama, but a couple I'm very good friends with got an inheritance from a relative who passed away recently. I don't know how much it was, but when they brought it up and mentioned that they weren't sure how to use it, I offered to show them how to open a retirement account or invest in index funds. That didn't sound very fun to them, so they ended up using it to go on 2-week European vacation, and have been on a buying binge ever since they got back with what I assume is the leftover cash. They're big advocates of retail therapy, you see--just a month or two ago (before they received the inheritance) they were upset because they overspent and had to borrow money from one of their parents. They also hate their jobs.
I wish I could have helped but I know if i pressed the issue beyond just offering to help them invest it they would be very offended (understandably). The vacation looked like a lot of fun, but still... seems like a squandered windfall, however much the inheritance was.
Be sure and update us when they (inevitably?) let people know how hard things are and that they don't have the money for 'X' necessity.
The only way I can reconcile this in my head is that they are simply playing a different game to us. A game where the goal is "living life" by spending every dollar available, and having anything leftover is failure.
I thought of so many ways to spend that money, even as a teenager it was clear to me how it could be spent without incurring the penalties or breaking rules. Kind of a fun movie anyway.
So sad to anticipate all that. I hope I can convince my parents to get rid of extra vehicles and the big motorhome before they die--those are the first items my sister will presume are going her way for her sons.Heh, I say let 'em have the RV. From what I've heard, they're a lot like a timeshare--expensive to maintain and depreciate like a luxury sports car.
I don't know if it qualifies as a drama, but a couple I'm very good friends with got an inheritance from a relative who passed away recently. I don't know how much it was, but when they brought it up and mentioned that they weren't sure how to use it, I offered to show them how to open a retirement account or invest in index funds. That didn't sound very fun to them, so they ended up using it to go on 2-week European vacation, and have been on a buying binge ever since they got back with what I assume is the leftover cash. They're big advocates of retail therapy, you see--just a month or two ago (before they received the inheritance) they were upset because they overspent and had to borrow money from one of their parents. They also hate their jobs.
I wish I could have helped but I know if i pressed the issue beyond just offering to help them invest it they would be very offended (understandably). The vacation looked like a lot of fun, but still... seems like a squandered windfall, however much the inheritance was.
Be sure and update us when they (inevitably?) let people know how hard things are and that they don't have the money for 'X' necessity.
The only way I can reconcile this in my head is that they are simply playing a different game to us. A game where the goal is "living life" by spending every dollar available, and having anything leftover is failure.
So sad to anticipate all that. I hope I can convince my parents to get rid of extra vehicles and the big motorhome before they die--those are the first items my sister will presume are going her way for her sons.Heh, I say let 'em have the RV. From what I've heard, they're a lot like a timeshare--expensive to maintain and depreciate like a luxury sports car.
I expect similar drama when my parents die. My sister will show up and expect to be running the show and will start to grab things. She is older and has always been a bossy bitch and is quite cray-cray. She is 2 years older than me but still likes to think of me as "little girl" (her actual remark to me when fighting) even though I am far more educated, have 30X her wealth, and have very well-scrubbed, educated young women for my daughters. Bonus, I am not a pathological liar like she is.
About 20 years ago my parents set up a living trust and told me that they have me on the trust. They said they do not have my sister on it but I have not seen the actual document. I did go down with them to sign for their safe deposit box so I can access it one day. The idea is that I can go down and begin to execute their wishes as a co-trustee and give my sister half, and they don't trust her to handle things. I will follow their wishes. I just hope they have informed her of how it is going to go but unfortunately I don't think they have dealt with that.
I will track what she takes and charge her for it out of her portion of the estate. I am sure she will want everything to be given to her kids for furnishings and keepsakes, but anything that is not just garage sale crap will be accounted for and taken from her half.
So sad to anticipate all that. I hope I can convince my parents to get rid of extra vehicles and the big motorhome before they die--those are the first items my sister will presume are going her way for her sons.
ugh, dread. I hope all of this is at least 15 years out.
That sounds an awful lot like appeasement. I've never dealt with adults in that situation, but when I watch it in my kids, there is no avoiding the whining or tantrum. Wherever the boundary is drawn, that's where the battle will be fought, so you may as well plant your flag in a more advantageous position.
You're right, but that's not the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to say is that no matter where you divide the inheritance, the sister may throw a tantrum. So you might as well draw the line somewhat to the sister's disadvantage, knowing in advance that she'll kick and scream about being treated unfairly. Then you can gracefully cede some ground to make her happy, without giving up any of your half.That sounds an awful lot like appeasement. I've never dealt with adults in that situation, but when I watch it in my kids, there is no avoiding the whining or tantrum. Wherever the boundary is drawn, that's where the battle will be fought, so you may as well plant your flag in a more advantageous position.Of course you should plant your flag advantageously. But there are different types of advantages. Not spending days fighting with my sister over a fairly inconsequential amount of money would be far more advantageous to me than having a few extra dollars. So she walks away with a few more trinkets (that I don't specifically want) than I do. So what? This seems to me like an argument a child would have, since you bring up children. They don't really want or need the toy, but they are going to freak out and throw a tantrum about how unfair it is if someone else gets it.
It's not about appeasement. It's about not getting into arguments and causing myself stress and time over things that don't actually matter to me. If I don't want the old china cabinet worth about $200 and my sibling takes it and sells it, so what? I'm going to get worked up and put myself through the fight for $100? Nope. Not worth it to me.
You're right, but that's not the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to say is that no matter where you divide the inheritance, the sister may throw a tantrum. So you might as well draw the line somewhat to the sister's disadvantage, knowing in advance that she'll kick and scream about being treated unfairly. Then you can gracefully cede some ground to make her happy, without giving up any of your half.That sounds an awful lot like appeasement. I've never dealt with adults in that situation, but when I watch it in my kids, there is no avoiding the whining or tantrum. Wherever the boundary is drawn, that's where the battle will be fought, so you may as well plant your flag in a more advantageous position.Of course you should plant your flag advantageously. But there are different types of advantages. Not spending days fighting with my sister over a fairly inconsequential amount of money would be far more advantageous to me than having a few extra dollars. So she walks away with a few more trinkets (that I don't specifically want) than I do. So what? This seems to me like an argument a child would have, since you bring up children. They don't really want or need the toy, but they are going to freak out and throw a tantrum about how unfair it is if someone else gets it.
It's not about appeasement. It's about not getting into arguments and causing myself stress and time over things that don't actually matter to me. If I don't want the old china cabinet worth about $200 and my sibling takes it and sells it, so what? I'm going to get worked up and put myself through the fight for $100? Nope. Not worth it to me.
And yeah, a lot of these stories sound like little kids who care less about having something than they do about having something at someone else's expense.
You're right, but that's not the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to say is that no matter where you divide the inheritance, the sister may throw a tantrum. So you might as well draw the line somewhat to the sister's disadvantage, knowing in advance that she'll kick and scream about being treated unfairly. Then you can gracefully cede some ground to make her happy, without giving up any of your half.That sounds an awful lot like appeasement. I've never dealt with adults in that situation, but when I watch it in my kids, there is no avoiding the whining or tantrum. Wherever the boundary is drawn, that's where the battle will be fought, so you may as well plant your flag in a more advantageous position.Of course you should plant your flag advantageously. But there are different types of advantages. Not spending days fighting with my sister over a fairly inconsequential amount of money would be far more advantageous to me than having a few extra dollars. So she walks away with a few more trinkets (that I don't specifically want) than I do. So what? This seems to me like an argument a child would have, since you bring up children. They don't really want or need the toy, but they are going to freak out and throw a tantrum about how unfair it is if someone else gets it.
It's not about appeasement. It's about not getting into arguments and causing myself stress and time over things that don't actually matter to me. If I don't want the old china cabinet worth about $200 and my sibling takes it and sells it, so what? I'm going to get worked up and put myself through the fight for $100? Nope. Not worth it to me.
And yeah, a lot of these stories sound like little kids who care less about having something than they do about having something at someone else's expense.
True, but how about the Sister learns to be an adult and not behave inappropriately?
Sorry, been away from the thread.This is exactly what happened with my sister and the car. My plan was to do exactly what you outlined, but alas, I have a co-executor. You see, my mom had instructed us to put our names on anything we wanted in the house, meaning futniture, tchotchkes, etc. My sister shimmied under the car, wrote her name on the chassis, and told everyone what she did. Ha Ha, you're funny, sez one and all, it's part of the estate. Nothing that anyone else chose had much more than sentimental value.
Oh, yah, she can have it all- take the motorhome and all the cars. And I will deduct it all from her side of the balance sheet and take the equal portion in cash for my side. Fortunately the parents have a paid-for lake home and any imbalance will be taken from that and it should cover it completely.
My point was that sister will expect to just grab all the stuff and then also have half the house and half the cash. Not. Gonna. Happen. She can grab all the material possessions she wants but it is coming out her half. I will give her a "deal" on the value of each of those bits of rolling stock since I won't have to go through the hassle of liquidating them but they will certainly not be freely given from the estate just cuz she wants it that way.
Simple as that. She can be the same grubby little creep she has always been but I control the ledger and final balance sheet. It will be stressful but she is not going to change.
On the low-dollar items, I suppose I could come up with a blanket estimate for the small bits rather than itemized. When my former in-laws died we did have an actual garage sale. SIL showed up expecting to walk away with a fistful of cash. Nope. The money went into the estate for distribution to all of the siblings as named in the will which wasn't settled for another 5 months. People just don't get it--they think it is a big grab-athon and they can just walk off with things.
The best thing that could happen is that my parents live a long, long time and spend their last dollar on the day of their death. Use all of their money to have excellent health support and services and then keel over as they tip the daily maid with their last sawbuck. Fingers crossed.
The best thing that could happen is that my parents live a long, long time and spend their last dollar on the day of their death. Use all of their money to have excellent health support and services and then keel over as they tip the daily maid with their last sawbuck. Fingers crossed.
Ditto what JGS said!
I've had several facebook friends share a clip from a Dr. Phil show in which the 15-year-old daughter is asking her mom for a $2,500/month allowance, and a "G-wagon", which I guess is a car, but it's a lot nicer than a Mercedes C-Class.Does this fit here because the kid is working so hard on spending it now that there won't be an inhertiance?
I've had several facebook friends share a clip from a Dr. Phil show in which the 15-year-old daughter is asking her mom for a $2,500/month allowance, and a "G-wagon", which I guess is a car, but it's a lot nicer than a Mercedes C-Class.Gee, I wish I had a $2,500/mo allowance to spend on whatever I want. TBH, though, since I have a full-time job and a wife and kids, I probably wouldn't have time to spend that much anyway, since I'd want to spend it on Stuff for Projects.
Recently found out that my grandpa had a life insurance policy (not sure why he still had one, as he was in his late 90's). The beneficiaries were only my dad and my uncle, and excluded my aunt. I felt so horrible for her since she'd already been treated like a second-class citizen for being a woman her whole life, and I'm sure that it hurt her deeply to find this out after her father's death. It wasn't much money, but of course it's not about the money.
Recently found out that my grandpa had a life insurance policy (not sure why he still had one, as he was in his late 90's). The beneficiaries were only my dad and my uncle, and excluded my aunt. I felt so horrible for her since she'd already been treated like a second-class citizen for being a woman her whole life, and I'm sure that it hurt her deeply to find this out after her father's death. It wasn't much money, but of course it's not about the money.
I hope your dad and uncle shared the proceeds after the fact?
Recently found out that my grandpa had a life insurance policy (not sure why he still had one, as he was in his late 90's). The beneficiaries were only my dad and my uncle, and excluded my aunt. I felt so horrible for her since she'd already been treated like a second-class citizen for being a woman her whole life, and I'm sure that it hurt her deeply to find this out after her father's death. It wasn't much money, but of course it's not about the money.
I hope your dad and uncle shared the proceeds after the fact?
My dad is dead, so as the executor of my grandpa's estate my uncle is giving my dad's share to me and my sister, which is the only reason I know about this. When I heard about my aunt not being included, I said we should split it but my uncle said best not to bring it up and it's so little money (in the hundreds of dollars) that it won't make a difference to her. I'm just horrified at what a shitty thing my grandpa did.
It's a crappy way to treat a daughter in this day and age, but society was different in his day. When daughters married, they would leave their family and join their husband's family.
I knew I would get something out of reading Pride and Prejudice. I guess my high school English teacher was right.
It's a crappy way to treat a daughter in this day and age, but society was different in his day.
I'd pass it along to the Aunt just like if the grandfather meant it to go to her even if it came out of my pocket.
It's a crappy way to treat a daughter in this day and age, but society was different in his day.
We're also from a different culture but my grandpa has been in North America for quite some time and everything else in the will was divided fairly to all children (living and deceased, as there were more siblings). I have no idea why this stupid tiny life insurance policy was the one place where he legally singled her out. My aunt did SO MUCH for my grandpa, too.
It's a crappy way to treat a daughter in this day and age, but society was different in his day.
We're also from a different culture but my grandpa has been in North America for quite some time and everything else in the will was divided fairly to all children (living and deceased, as there were more siblings). I have no idea why this stupid tiny life insurance policy was the one place where he legally singled her out. My aunt did SO MUCH for my grandpa, too.
Was she younger than the two males? Perhaps he just forgot to update the policy? (One can hope.)
It's a crappy way to treat a daughter in this day and age, but society was different in his day.
We're also from a different culture but my grandpa has been in North America for quite some time and everything else in the will was divided fairly to all children (living and deceased, as there were more siblings). I have no idea why this stupid tiny life insurance policy was the one place where he legally singled her out. My aunt did SO MUCH for my grandpa, too.
Was she younger than the two males? Perhaps he just forgot to update the policy? (One can hope.)
This aunt is the oldest... and actually, my other aunt who would have been alive when the beneficiaries were updated was left out as well! :(
It's a crappy way to treat a daughter in this day and age, but society was different in his day.
We're also from a different culture but my grandpa has been in North America for quite some time and everything else in the will was divided fairly to all children (living and deceased, as there were more siblings). I have no idea why this stupid tiny life insurance policy was the one place where he legally singled her out. My aunt did SO MUCH for my grandpa, too.
Was she younger than the two males? Perhaps he just forgot to update the policy? (One can hope.)
This aunt is the oldest... and actually, my other aunt who would have been alive when the beneficiaries were updated was left out as well! :(
Nobody suffered because Aunt Bea's special bread & butter pickle recipe was buried with her.
Suppose you are one of two boys, and there's a sister who's been largely left out of the estate. If you take your half of the estate, and you give half of that ish to your sister, you still have 25% of the estate (a fair share would be 33%, so you have better than 3/4 of what a fair share would be), and you've demonstrated to your adult sister that you believe in fairness and equality. Seems like the kind of investment that could save the family.
Why wouldn't you do that? Taxes?
I'm seeing this division based on gender right now in my spouse's family. Two boys will split an inheritance and their sister will be left out. Truth is, she probably doesn't need the money, but neither do the boys, so for it to be divided by gender is both depressing and maddening and creating a rift between them all. Not worth it!
Nosy questions you don't have to answer: Is there anything weird in your birth story? Do you have siblings? Does she treat them the same way?
I hope you researched the shit out of that lawyer. You deserve everything they're going to get for you. BTW, contact the IRS and get copies of your tax returns asap. You dont need a lawyer to do that and I suspect there's some seriously incriminating evidence just waiting to be uncovered.
Oh boy, a thread for me to vent on...
Here's my story (so far:)
...
And I suppose I'm writing this all down, here, because I still feel like an entitled, lazy, and spoiled child for suing them, and it's mostly my fault I'm in this position, in the first place.
P.S.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506t.pdf for free transcripts of your tax returns (contains the line-by-line info)
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506.pdf for actual copies, $50 each
@dramathrowaway ,+1 on this and what everyone else says.
I'll be very blunt. Instruct your lawyer to show no mercy. Your mother deserves whatever the law tosses at her, including jail.
You have no reason to be nice. Your own mother is stealing from you. If you end up getting her put into jail for it, feel good about yourself.
I see no reason to deal with her ever again once you get your money. If your dad participated or condoned the abuse, ditto for him.
It's not your fault that your mother is scum.
And you sound pretty amazing. Yeah, you.
Oh boy, a thread for me to vent on...
Here's my story (so far:)
...
Everyone I've told this story to has strongly advised me to get a lawyer, and I hesitated for months, hoping some reasonable solution could be reached. (For example, giving me a portion of the funds to invest in index funds, so that I could demonstrate that I'm a responsible investor, but every possible compromise was rejected.) The bank said that if I can get a court order, they'll happily turn it over. I also checked to make sure my mother hasn't drained the account, but it seems she hasn't. (A little after that, my mother discovered the girlfriend, and we had our largely-unrelated fight.)
...
So, I've gotten a lawyer. I dislike doing it, and it feels scummy. Growing up, I was taught I owed everything to them, and I mean EVERYTHING. My art talent/skill wasn't my own, neither were my grades, study habits, etc. They even said my friends only liked me due to my parents' large house! Looking back, this is abusive behavior. (And for the sake of brevity, I'm leaving out descriptions of the years of physical abuse, including chemical burns, and other assorted, but mostly unrelated, abuse.) They weren't parents trying to prepare their child for the world -- they wanted me under their control, and dependent on them (or another male authority figure.) Their primary goal when I attended college was for me to find a husband, for chrissake. I know this is going to wreck whatever remains of my relationship to my mother, and likely the rest of my biological family, too. But given the girlfriend-arguments and already strained relationship, I'm not sure that's much of a loss.
...
Hi hello! I don't think the "scummy" was in reference to the lawyer, but was more in reference to having to go over her parents' heads to the law, when parents have typically been the end-all-be-all authority figure for her.Oh boy, a thread for me to vent on...
Here's my story (so far:)
...
Everyone I've told this story to has strongly advised me to get a lawyer, and I hesitated for months, hoping some reasonable solution could be reached. (For example, giving me a portion of the funds to invest in index funds, so that I could demonstrate that I'm a responsible investor, but every possible compromise was rejected.) The bank said that if I can get a court order, they'll happily turn it over. I also checked to make sure my mother hasn't drained the account, but it seems she hasn't. (A little after that, my mother discovered the girlfriend, and we had our largely-unrelated fight.)
...
So, I've gotten a lawyer. I dislike doing it, and it feels scummy. Growing up, I was taught I owed everything to them, and I mean EVERYTHING. My art talent/skill wasn't my own, neither were my grades, study habits, etc. They even said my friends only liked me due to my parents' large house! Looking back, this is abusive behavior. (And for the sake of brevity, I'm leaving out descriptions of the years of physical abuse, including chemical burns, and other assorted, but mostly unrelated, abuse.) They weren't parents trying to prepare their child for the world -- they wanted me under their control, and dependent on them (or another male authority figure.) Their primary goal when I attended college was for me to find a husband, for chrissake. I know this is going to wreck whatever remains of my relationship to my mother, and likely the rest of my biological family, too. But given the girlfriend-arguments and already strained relationship, I'm not sure that's much of a loss.
...
@lexde
I bolded a particular phrase that stuck out to me. Lawyers can be scummy. There is somewhat of a common trope that lawyers are scoundrels leaching off the public. But I don't think that's how you're using this phrase.
This came off to me as exactly as your mother would want you to feel. This is the abuse speaking to you; this is the abuse lying to you. There is absolutely nothing scummy or dislikable about taking someone who has stolen from you to court. This is your mother trying to get into your head. These feelings you have about the lawyer I believe are actually coming from your upbringing.
This isn't your fault, and you're not weak for needing the government to bring justice for you. Use the help the lawyer will give you. Let the lawyer bring absolutely everything he can against your parents.
Thanks for all the best wishes and advice. Reading your replies and feeling your empathy, I have a better sense of how skewed my own view has become. I've heard of NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) and the relevant subreddits, though I've largely avoided them, due to how similar their experiences are to my own. It can sometimes be hard to read. I strongly suspect my mother has some form of this, which was left to fester, as she never sought out any means of bettering herself. As for therapy, I'm working through CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) and DBT (Dialectical behavior therapy, to learn healthy coping mechanisms,) on my own. When I have more in the way of funding, I'll likely pursue formal therapy. In the meantime, I'm fortunate enough to have a couple people in my life who are familiar enough with the kinds of problems someone like me typically develops. I have it on good authority that I'm likely to beat this in 3-5 years, so I'm fairly optimistic.
Going low to no contact will also likely be a relief. Also, the information for the IRS saved me a few clicks. Thanks. :)
I've made another (non-throwaway) account, that I'll use to discuss my adventures in mustachianism. (--> @JSalazar)
@Dicey I have enough information to infer most of the story. If you're curious: my parents were strongly influenced by my grandparents, who were self-made millionaires (quite mustachian, but outside of their business, nutsos.) The grandparents withheld affection, were physically abusive, etc., but my mother put up with it due to the significant financial aid my grandparents provided. To my grandparents, motherhood was expected. Unfortunately, motherhood turned out to be far more work than my mother was willing to do. Before I was born, she enjoyed a social life full of glittering parties & fancy dinners. I wasn't a healthy baby, when I was born. I don't believe I ever needed long-term hospitalization, but it was enough to effectively kill her social life. (I was the sort of baby with sensitivity to sound/light/certain textures/foods, etc.) This enraged her. She expected me to do everything perfectly the first time, to never be ill, to never need different food, etc. As I grew up, I was a frequent interruption in her routine, and she needs her routines like most people need water (severe OCD.) Eventually I learned better, but then she started seeking me out, demanding I act in the role of a therapist any time her own parents decided to belittle her parenting skills (or lack thereof.) It's funny, because I learned to treat my own issues through research/attempts to treat my mother. What made it worse was that my grandparents seemed to unconditionally love me, praising me as though I could do no wrong. My mother, on the other hand, could never do anything right. If you're familiar with NPD, it's a slight twist on the golden child / scapegoat dynamic. Once I began to see the dynamic for what it was, I started feeling uncomfortable around my grandparents, especially as I learned more about how they abused their daughter. I'm committed to breaking that chain.
I also suspect she thought she could relive her younger (best) years through me. She dressed me up as she had dressed, when she was younger. I was made to adopt her chosen hairstyle, hair color, the kinds of clothes she liked, friends she would've had, etc. This sort of thing is cute when done to babies (sort of?) but disturbing when done to a 16-25 year old. For example, I read much more than she did, which resulted in punishment. Basically, she wanted MomVer2.0. The abuse was mostly an extension of trying to fit me into this mold, even if it required using hair dye I was *very* allergic to, for example. I could be doubled over in front of her, and she'd just shrug and call it the "price of beauty." The whole situation is both hilarious and sad.
Something else to check: your credit. Someone who would steal from you like this may also have stolen from you another way.
I've written a couple long winded narratives here about this and then deleted them. I don't know what to make of recent events.
In short a relative I haven't seen in a very long time has popped up asking for DOB and address to add me to their will and possibly transfer unspecified property to me if I want it. This relative is from a messy part of the family that often feuded over money. Now this relative is one of the few left and has whatever is left of that money. There seems to be a genuine wish to gift me property in my town that i would then be free to sell or keep if I wanted.
Relative tells me I'm their favorite. Might even be true b/c I did happily spent time with them when I was younger and I've never said a mean word to them though they were part of the inheritance drama after my grandparents passed.
My parent was also part of the drama although myself and my other parent gently removed my parent from the drama to preserve their emotional stability. It left emotional scars.
In short my grandparents had a will which divided up things more or less equally but a now dead relative raided some of the accounts and walked away. Various papers went missing, some cash went missing, relative went mum, etc. As my parents didn't need the money, my attitude was that they should just retreat and make peace with it. We all cut ties and continued our lives.
That's my attitude now. If this relative were to get weird - or cause problems with their sibling/my parent - I'd rather just walk away from whatever the gift might be.
Its a different kind of FU money that DW and I have - the ability to avoid inheritance conflicts b/c we have our own comfortable life.
I'm worried both about some sort of identity theft risk and worried about the potential family drama time bomb this might create.
So should I be worried about giving over my DOB and address? Any risks that anyone can identify?
I would say visit the relative [uncle / aunt ?] and take them out for lunch. They may have a different perspective on the previous drama you haven't heard, or may have had their own issues with deceased grabby relative - that they want to talk to someone about, but doesn't want to approach your parent seeking for a sympathetic ear.
Bring them to the property in question, have a snack on the lawn, tree clearing, rooftop, sidewalk, whichever. Ask what they would want done with the property and why you seem to them to be the best caretaker for it. I suppose they would like it kept in the family, at least a little longer ?
Its a relative , they can figure out your address, and your birthday date can be found in some old calendar of their own, or Grandmas calendar/ datebook from when JustJoe was a cute 3 yr old , and Aunt/ Uncle went to your b-day party.. They can reason out the year of birth. I wouldn't stress on identity theft too much.
I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
Why keep it a secret? Don't you want them to know they a getting a equal share? Or are you trying to keep the will a secret? That might be harder.
I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
Why keep it a secret? Don't you want them to know they a getting a equal share? Or are you trying to keep the will a secret? That might be harder.
Here's an odd question: if someone were to me gift a check - say $10K - and there is the potential for family drama, where would be the best place for me to put the money so I could either return the money or divide it at a later date?
In the bank and under the mattress doesn't really let it grow to keep up with inflation. Other methods might be too restrictive. I just don't know much about these things.
I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
I'm not sure I'm reading this right, but let me caution you against intentionally ignoring the will. An executor's job is to faithfully carry out the instructions in the will, not to change it to make it better. I don't know Canadian law (or USA law either for that matter) but it would not surprise me if you could be found personally liable if you ignore the will.
I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
I'm not sure I'm reading this right, but let me caution you against intentionally ignoring the will. An executor's job is to faithfully carry out the instructions in the will, not to change it to make it better. I don't know Canadian law (or USA law either for that matter) but it would not surprise me if you could be found personally liable if you ignore the will.
Possibly, but 1) the only person who loses is OP, 2) who would have an interest in taking the case just to prove a point of principle? and 3) it is always open to someone to refuse to take all or part of an inheritance - which is effectively what OP is doing, with the result that the sisters' 25% shares become larger because more is in their side of the overall pot.
Personally, I'd say to the sisters "these wills are obviously 30 years out of date, I don't know what our parents were thinking but I have no doubt that the fair thing to do is for us to share everything equally and that's what I'm going to do." I think that's better than trying to hide. But OP knows their family best.
thanks to all that clarified what I was saying.....DH will execute the will as written, he will just quietly try and gift money to his sisters so that each of them gets 33 1/3 %, our assumption is that his sisters won't question each of them getting a 1/3, and thus we can keep them from knowing the misogynistic nature of the original will. They don't need to know that their parents valued them less because they were female. (speaking as a woman I am offended, I can't say whether they'd be or not or not, since they grew up in the culture - but why risk offending them). If they push to see the will, or make any kind of fuss, DH may choose to execute the will as written - his family, his choice. I can only tell him how I would feel if it were me......I will encourage him to pay himself as an executor, since we'll probably be living 3 hours away by the time his father passes, and that's alot of extra travel/gas.I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
I'm not sure I'm reading this right, but let me caution you against intentionally ignoring the will. An executor's job is to faithfully carry out the instructions in the will, not to change it to make it better. I don't know Canadian law (or USA law either for that matter) but it would not surprise me if you could be found personally liable if you ignore the will.
Possibly, but 1) the only person who loses is OP, 2) who would have an interest in taking the case just to prove a point of principle? and 3) it is always open to someone to refuse to take all or part of an inheritance - which is effectively what OP is doing, with the result that the sisters' 25% shares become larger because more is in their side of the overall pot.
Personally, I'd say to the sisters "these wills are obviously 30 years out of date, I don't know what our parents were thinking but I have no doubt that the fair thing to do is for us to share everything equally and that's what I'm going to do." I think that's better than trying to hide. But OP knows their family best.
I was missing the fact that OP was both the executor and the party that would be missing out by splitting evenly. Thanks, objection withdrawn.
Does anyone know what is a reasonable fee for an executor?The list of fiduciary executors that the laquer we are working with sent us all change 1% of the estate.
Now her kids are suing for a portion of his estate, claiming they're entitled to a share of it because the couple was married for ten years. While they may have the legal right, some of us are gobsmacked because they had already taken a decent amount of money from their mother years ago and were already quite wealthy. Now they want more.
Bumping this thread.
Elderly relative, widowed a decade-plus ago, marries elderly widow he met in grief counseling. Both are well-off financially, though her more so than him. After the wedding, she moves into his home, sells her big fancy house and distributes the sale proceeds to her grown children. The couple set up their money in a his/hers/theirs arrangement, complete with wills and possibly trusts. He dies, leaving his cash and ultimately the house (which his wife will continue to reside in until her death, per their arrangement) to his grown children. Now her kids are suing for a portion of his estate, claiming they're entitled to a share of it because the couple was married for ten years. While they may have the legal right, some of us are gobsmacked because they had already taken a decent amount of money from their mother years ago and were already quite wealthy. Now they want more.
Bumping this thread.
Elderly relative, widowed a decade-plus ago, marries elderly widow he met in grief counseling. Both are well-off financially, though her more so than him. After the wedding, she moves into his home, sells her big fancy house and distributes the sale proceeds to her grown children. The couple set up their money in a his/hers/theirs arrangement, complete with wills and possibly trusts. He dies, leaving his cash and ultimately the house (which his wife will continue to reside in until her death, per their arrangement) to his grown children. Now her kids are suing for a portion of his estate, claiming they're entitled to a share of it because the couple was married for ten years. While they may have the legal right, some of us are gobsmacked because they had already taken a decent amount of money from their mother years ago and were already quite wealthy. Now they want more.
Actually they do NOT have the legal right. Hopefully an attorney will explain this to them to avoid this nonsense. They were adult children. There is no evidence her children were adopted by her late husband. IF there was no will (and there was a will) it would go to his wife, then biological children. Stepchildren have no natural rights to inheritance. Sometimes I hate people.
Bumping this thread.
Elderly relative, widowed a decade-plus ago, marries elderly widow he met in grief counseling. Both are well-off financially, though her more so than him. After the wedding, she moves into his home, sells her big fancy house and distributes the sale proceeds to her grown children. The couple set up their money in a his/hers/theirs arrangement, complete with wills and possibly trusts. He dies, leaving his cash and ultimately the house (which his wife will continue to reside in until her death, per their arrangement) to his grown children. Now her kids are suing for a portion of his estate, claiming they're entitled to a share of it because the couple was married for ten years. While they may have the legal right, some of us are gobsmacked because they had already taken a decent amount of money from their mother years ago and were already quite wealthy. Now they want more.
Actually they do NOT have the legal right. Hopefully an attorney will explain this to them to avoid this nonsense. They were adult children. There is no evidence her children were adopted by her late husband. IF there was no will (and there was a will) it would go to his wife, then biological children. Stepchildren have no natural rights to inheritance. Sometimes I hate people.
Yeah, I don't get it. They're apparently claiming there's a state law that allows this. During the past couple of years, several of the adult children used their mom's funds and/or their own (don't know which) to pay for in-home care for her; perhaps they presume they're entitled to some of his money because he benefited indirectly from an aide administering her meds and doing some housekeeping? If that's their rationale, they should've held onto the money she gifted them when she remarried, which might have been as much as high five to low six figures apiece: it was a damn big house. They could have stopped to consider how much more time and money they might be spending on her care if she hadn't had a new husband to provide a home and companionship for many years.
This is the pits for his kids, all of whom are working or middle class, at or near retirement themselves, and could put to good use whatever their dad left them. Instead, I'm sure the lawyers' fees are going to be eating up a chunk of whatever money there is.
I have no financial stake in this. It just makes me sad to see what greed can do to people, even (especially?) those who are upper-middle class or rich.
Gosh this is worse than my story that started up on page 1 or 2!Bumping this thread.
Elderly relative, widowed a decade-plus ago, marries elderly widow he met in grief counseling. Both are well-off financially, though her more so than him. After the wedding, she moves into his home, sells her big fancy house and distributes the sale proceeds to her grown children. The couple set up their money in a his/hers/theirs arrangement, complete with wills and possibly trusts. He dies, leaving his cash and ultimately the house (which his wife will continue to reside in until her death, per their arrangement) to his grown children. Now her kids are suing for a portion of his estate, claiming they're entitled to a share of it because the couple was married for ten years. While they may have the legal right, some of us are gobsmacked because they had already taken a decent amount of money from their mother years ago and were already quite wealthy. Now they want more.
Actually they do NOT have the legal right. Hopefully an attorney will explain this to them to avoid this nonsense. They were adult children. There is no evidence her children were adopted by her late husband. IF there was no will (and there was a will) it would go to his wife, then biological children. Stepchildren have no natural rights to inheritance. Sometimes I hate people.
Yeah, I don't get it. They're apparently claiming there's a state law that allows this. During the past couple of years, several of the adult children used their mom's funds and/or their own (don't know which) to pay for in-home care for her; perhaps they presume they're entitled to some of his money because he benefited indirectly from an aide administering her meds and doing some housekeeping? If that's their rationale, they should've held onto the money she gifted them when she remarried, which might have been as much as high five to low six figures apiece: it was a damn big house. They could have stopped to consider how much more time and money they might be spending on her care if she hadn't had a new husband to provide a home and companionship for many years.
This is the pits for his kids, all of whom are working or middle class, at or near retirement themselves, and could put to good use whatever their dad left them. Instead, I'm sure the lawyers' fees are going to be eating up a chunk of whatever money there is.
I have no financial stake in this. It just makes me sad to see what greed can do to people, even (especially?) those who are upper-middle class or rich.
These stories are just sad...
I received a small inheritance recently (and unexpectedly). But alas for you all: it was the utter opposite of dramatic. The executor did everything 110% by the book and the inheritors all tripped over themselves making sure everyone else was OK with everything that was done. And everything worked out as it was supposed to. It reminded me how fortunate I am.
Maybe there is more to the story, like they paid for a lot of renovations to make it wheelchair accessible, for mom and had an agreement to be repaid, and now just want it back.
Totally correct that non-dependent step children have zero inheritance rights. DH was adopted by his stepdad, (first dad died when he was 2) so ended up out of the will of his grandfather whom he had a life-long close relationship with.... No one realized that "all my grandchildren" would exclude a grandson that was adopted by someone else.
Before my grandmother died a couple of years ago, my aunt had power of attorney.
My mother only told me last night that two of my cousins hit up my aunt (their mother) to "dip into" my grandmother's estate (which was funding her aged care) for them.
Thank god my aunt had the balls to tell them where to go.
Before my grandmother died a couple of years ago, my aunt had power of attorney.
My mother only told me last night that two of my cousins hit up my aunt (their mother) to "dip into" my grandmother's estate (which was funding her aged care) for them.
Thank god my aunt had the balls to tell them where to go.
Thank goodness for stories like this to restore faith in one out of three members of humanity.
Many years ago, my grandparents passed away and as their two children had pre-deceased them, the estate was to be divided up among the five grandchildren per stirpes (equal amounts to each of their children then divided equally between that child's children). I have one sister so we were to receive 25% each. The other three grandchildren (all descended from my parent's only sibling) were to receive 16.6% each.You are a total badass! Sorry it came to this, but hooray for you for standing your ground.
The very entitled, only boy in the group, insisted that it wasn't fair he would inherit less than my sister and I would. He held up the distribution, threatened to sue and was generally an expensive pain in the process.
Eventually I lost it during a whole family (both sides) meeting with the lawyers my grandparents had very sensibly assigned as executors. I very loudly (ok, I was shouting) said that our parents and grandparents were all dead. If my sister was dead too I'd get 50%. My sister is well worth 25% to me.
The three cousins had lost a fourth sibling. If that cousin was still alive they'd all be receiving 12.5% each. Would they give 4.1% of the total to have that cousin back? If the boy cousin wants 25% so badly, which of his living sisters was he willing to bump off to get the 8.4% difference?
There was a long awkward silence.
The lawyers contacted everyone a few days later to let us know the challenge to the will had been rescinded. I've remained friendly with the two girl cousins, but it was years before the boy cousin spoke to me again.
Many years ago, my grandparents passed away and as their two children had pre-deceased them, the estate was to be divided up among the five grandchildren per stirpes (equal amounts to each of their children then divided equally between that child's children). I have one sister so we were to receive 25% each. The other three grandchildren (all descended from my parent's only sibling) were to receive 16.6% each.That is one outstanding way to say STFU. Well done.
The very entitled, only boy in the group, insisted that it wasn't fair he would inherit less than my sister and I would. He held up the distribution, threatened to sue and was generally an expensive pain in the process.
Eventually I lost it during a whole family (both sides) meeting with the lawyers my grandparents had very sensibly assigned as executors. I very loudly (ok, I was shouting) said that our parents and grandparents were all dead. If my sister was dead too I'd get 50%. My sister is well worth 25% to me.
The three cousins had lost a fourth sibling. If that cousin was still alive they'd all be receiving 12.5% each. Would they give 4.1% of the total to have that cousin back? If the boy cousin wants 25% so badly, which of his living sisters was he willing to bump off to get the 8.4% difference?
There was a long awkward silence.
The lawyers contacted everyone a few days later to let us know the challenge to the will had been rescinded. I've remained friendly with the two girl cousins, but it was years before the boy cousin spoke to me again.
Many years ago, my grandparents passed away and as their two children had pre-deceased them, the estate was to be divided up among the five grandchildren per stirpes (equal amounts to each of their children then divided equally between that child's children). I have one sister so we were to receive 25% each. The other three grandchildren (all descended from my parent's only sibling) were to receive 16.6% each.
....
Many years ago, my grandparents passed away and as their two children had pre-deceased them, the estate was to be divided up among the five grandchildren per stirpes (equal amounts to each of their children then divided equally between that child's children). I have one sister so we were to receive 25% each. The other three grandchildren (all descended from my parent's only sibling) were to receive 16.6% each.
I do wonder about the fairness of these next generation distributions. But if the Grandparents were really worried about it they would split it 20% to each Grandchild. Didn't all the cousins know how things would be split before the grandparents passed?
Many years ago, my grandparents passed away and as their two children had pre-deceased them, the estate was to be divided up among the five grandchildren per stirpes (equal amounts to each of their children then divided equally between that child's children). I have one sister so we were to receive 25% each. The other three grandchildren (all descended from my parent's only sibling) were to receive 16.6% each.
....
I do wonder about the fairness of these next generation distributions. But if the Grandparents were really worried about it they would split it 20% to each Grandchild. Didn't all the cousins know how things would be split before the grandparents passed?
Grandparents may not have known how many children their kids would have. Per Stirpes is a nice contingency, but it produces really weird outcomes if--say--one side has a single child, and the other side has seven.
As for me, I prefer primogeniture. Make damn sure your oldest can manage things, then put them in charge.
First of all, @SheWhoWalksAtLunch , that was awesome! Well done!
Second, "Fair"? Fair doesn't apply. It's was the grandparent's money, no one but them had any claim to it. If they wanted to set up a trust for their cats that would have been their right to do so.
But if we wanted to talk fair, they gave each of their kids the same amount of money. That's fair.
If their kids wanted to have a different number of kids, that's the kid's business, not the grandparents.
The grandkids have advantages and disadvantages from having more or fewer siblings. This particular distribution falls into the disadvantage category for those with more siblings. Having more siblings to help you out when things go wrong in life is an advantage. Perhaps you could view the larger amount to those with fewer siblings as compensation for that... :)
Grandparents may not have known how many children their kids would have. Per Stirpes is a nice contingency, but it produces really weird outcomes if--say--one side has a single child, and the other side has seven.
As for me, I prefer primogeniture. Make damn sure your oldest can manage things, then put them in charge.
Ooohh. I get to google some Latin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_stirpes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture
"Primogeniture (English: /praɪməˈdʒɛnɪtʃər/) is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn legitimate son to inherit his parent's entire or main estate."
Primogeniture is your preference? Really? I can see making the oldest child the executor (if they were responsible) but giving them everything? The way you said "put them in charge" is OK with me but it is hard to trust anyone would split things fairly.
Per capita sounds like a good idea to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
I don't consider myself any more or less deserving than any of my cousins.
My one grandparent clearly listed and named their grandchildren who then all received the same generous gift. In that list even non-blood descendants were named to make things clear.
However, a gift is a bit different than a % of the remaining estate.
Has anyone ever seen gifts of a certain amount upto a certain percentage? I have heard of cases where the gifts were so generous that there was almost nothing left for the heirs.
Second, "Fair"? Fair doesn't apply. It's was the grandparent's money, no one but them had any claim to it. If they wanted to set up a trust for their cats that would have been their right to do so.
Before my grandmother died a couple of years ago, my aunt had power of attorney.
My mother only told me last night that two of my cousins hit up my aunt (their mother) to "dip into" my grandmother's estate (which was funding her aged care) for them.
Thank god my aunt had the balls to tell them where to go.
Thank goodness for stories like this to restore faith in one out of three members of humanity.
Fixed that for you...
Second, "Fair"? Fair doesn't apply. It's was the grandparent's money, no one but them had any claim to it. If they wanted to set up a trust for their cats that would have been their right to do so.
Um, I did... I have a trust for my cat if I died. The cat would be quite well taken care of.
You’re right when you’re right. I’m not sure what came over me to produce that optimism. It won’t likely happen again.
Second, "Fair"? Fair doesn't apply. It's was the grandparent's money, no one but them had any claim to it. If they wanted to set up a trust for their cats that would have been their right to do so.
Um, I did... I have a trust for my cat if I died. The cat would be quite well taken care of.
Better then my fella’s grandmother who wanted to be buried with hers. After her passing the family came together and decided this was one wish they would not respect. This is pretty reliving considering they , relieved balloons, sang a Celine dion song at the funeral and kept ashes in a locket.
Grandparents may not have known how many children their kids would have. Per Stirpes is a nice contingency, but it produces really weird outcomes if--say--one side has a single child, and the other side has seven.
As for me, I prefer primogeniture. Make damn sure your oldest can manage things, then put them in charge.
Ooohh. I get to google some Latin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_stirpes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture
"Primogeniture (English: /praɪməˈdʒɛnɪtʃər/) is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn legitimate son to inherit his parent's entire or main estate."
Primogeniture is your preference? Really? I can see making the oldest child the executor (if they were responsible) but giving them everything? The way you said "put them in charge" is OK with me but it is hard to trust anyone would split things fairly.
Per capita sounds like a good idea to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
I don't consider myself any more or less deserving than any of my cousins.
My one grandparent clearly listed and named their grandchildren who then all received the same generous gift. In that list even non-blood descendants were named to make things clear.
However, a gift is a bit different than a % of the remaining estate.
Has anyone ever seen gifts of a certain amount upto a certain percentage? I have heard of cases where the gifts were so generous that there was almost nothing left for the heirs.
Disclaimer: I cannot imagine actually doing Primogeniture: the other night, my two kids helped me pick up the play room, and I paid my daughter--who did it with energy and vigor--$1, while my son--who did it with reluctance--received $.50. The latter thought it was so unfair.
Many years ago, my grandparents passed away and as their two children had pre-deceased them, the estate was to be divided up among the five grandchildren per stirpes (equal amounts to each of their children then divided equally between that child's children). I have one sister so we were to receive 25% each. The other three grandchildren (all descended from my parent's only sibling) were to receive 16.6% each.
....
I do wonder about the fairness of these next generation distributions. But if the Grandparents were really worried about it they would split it 20% to each Grandchild. Didn't all the cousins know how things would be split before the grandparents passed?
Disclaimer: I cannot imagine actually doing Primogeniture: the other night, my two kids helped me pick up the play room, and I paid my daughter--who did it with energy and vigor--$1, while my son--who did it with reluctance--received $.50. The latter thought it was so unfair.
Fair enough ;)
- Finally, if you are an heir, be thinking how to use what you receive to unite the family, not divide it
Bean C I am sorry that has happened to you.Thanks. Writing someone out of a will, even if it makes business sense, is ugly. It definitely hurt. I felt like a bastard child. I think that this did push my desire to become FI. A sort of fuck you. I'm rich without you anyway.
Primogeniture is not fair monetarily but I understand it is sometimes the best, and only, way to keep family businesses and farms whole.
It may even be the best way to keep a cottage or vacation home in the family.
I know a daughter that was completely left out of the family business and therefore any inheritance. It included a multi million property fortune that neither could have paid the other sibling 1/2 for. Yet it would have been nice for her to still be a silent partner and receive a small dividend every year or be guaranteed something if some of the property was sold.
I really like this tip:
- Finally, if you are an heir, be thinking how to use what you receive to unite the family, not divide it
BeanCounter-Here is the way I choose to see it- My Uncles got bad legal advice by a lazy attorney. I believe that they wanted to protect the farm which is their only livelihood. I was in college when the will was changed and I think they were afraid that if I received 1/5 I might, in my own need, ask for my portion and they would have to sell property to buy me out.
It just doesn't seem possible to read the sum of what you've written here and think that your uncles are anything approaching decent human beings.
Bean- you are way nicer than I would be. I have a friend whose sister had two children by artificial insemination- she had a long time partner but she had sole custody and was their only legal parent. When her children were 19 and 12, she and the partner broke up. She rewrote her will leaving her substantial estate to the Humane society and disinheriting both children. She then committed suicide. My friend was able to get the part of the will disinherting the youngest over turned. She then reached a settlement with the Humane society for the 19 year old where they got a sum but the 19 year old got a good chunk. She threatened them with bad publicity taking money from an orphan. Those poor kids.
In the end I have plenty of money, and my uncles will have to live with the knowledge that they left their brother's (the war hero who died from agent orange) only child out to figure it out on her own. Maybe there is a possibility they will rethink their choices and leave something to my kids? Probably not.
Am I still angry and bitter? Only when I let myself think about it. ;)
Grandparents may not have known how many children their kids would have. Per Stirpes is a nice contingency, but it produces really weird outcomes if--say--one side has a single child, and the other side has seven.I don't think it's weird really.
As for me, I prefer primogeniture. Make damn sure your oldest can manage things, then put them in charge.
Bean- you are way nicer than I would be. I have a friend whose sister had two children by artificial insemination- she had a long time partner but she had sole custody and was their only legal parent. When her children were 19 and 12, she and the partner broke up. She rewrote her will leaving her substantial estate to the Humane society and disinheriting both children. She then committed suicide. My friend was able to get the part of the will disinherting the youngest over turned. She then reached a settlement with the Humane society for the 19 year old where they got a sum but the 19 year old got a good chunk. She threatened them with bad publicity taking money from an orphan. Those poor kids.
Bean- you are way nicer than I would be. I have a friend whose sister had two children by artificial insemination- she had a long time partner but she had sole custody and was their only legal parent. When her children were 19 and 12, she and the partner broke up. She rewrote her will leaving her substantial estate to the Humane society and disinheriting both children. She then committed suicide. My friend was able to get the part of the will disinherting the youngest over turned. She then reached a settlement with the Humane society for the 19 year old where they got a sum but the 19 year old got a good chunk. She threatened them with bad publicity taking money from an orphan. Those poor kids.
Why would you disinherit your own minor children??
Bean- you are way nicer than I would be. I have a friend whose sister had two children by artificial insemination- she had a long time partner but she had sole custody and was their only legal parent. When her children were 19 and 12, she and the partner broke up. She rewrote her will leaving her substantial estate to the Humane society and disinheriting both children. She then committed suicide. My friend was able to get the part of the will disinherting the youngest over turned. She then reached a settlement with the Humane society for the 19 year old where they got a sum but the 19 year old got a good chunk. She threatened them with bad publicity taking money from an orphan. Those poor kids.
Grandparents may not have known how many children their kids would have. Per Stirpes is a nice contingency, but it produces really weird outcomes if--say--one side has a single child, and the other side has seven.I don't think it's weird really.
As for me, I prefer primogeniture. Make damn sure your oldest can manage things, then put them in charge.
By the time my grandfather's estate/ trust was settled (when his second wife died), it was really wonky. She was 98. I was 46. By then:
- two of his 4 daughters had died. So their 1/4 (each) got split among their children. They each had 3 children. So, those 6 grandchildren got 1/12 a piece.
- one his daughters was alive, she got her 1/4
- the fourth was actually a DIL. His will left her 1/8, and left the other 1/8 to her children. She had 6 children. But one of them died. So each of her children, instead of getting 1/24, got 1/20.
Nothing wrong with wonky. He wanted to leave 1/4 to each of his daughters and the family of his son, who died relatively young.
Before my mother died, she did. She told them she didn't think it was right, and it was a dishonor to their brother.In the end I have plenty of money, and my uncles will have to live with the knowledge that they left their brother's (the war hero who died from agent orange) only child out to figure it out on her own. Maybe there is a possibility they will rethink their choices and leave something to my kids? Probably not.
Am I still angry and bitter? Only when I let myself think about it. ;)
Have you ever asked them to do so?
Not in a confrontational way, but in a polite, one time request of "you can make this right if you choose". I mean, we're told you need to ask for raises at jobs or the company has limited incentive to do much for you. Same thing here. If you keep silent they 1) likely managed to forget about it, and 2) figure you don't care at all. You obviously can communicate it very softly - understanding why they did it, such the desire to keep the farm going and not be split up, recognizing that your father wasn't contributing any longer to working of it - but also gently noting that as it stands, you have lost both your father at an early age and any emotional/supportive benefits he might have provided, and any family legacy he might have otherwise received if he had lived longer.
(If it were me, I'd put it in writing and copy my cousins so that they know too. Who knows, if the uncles don't fix it maybe the cousins will. But I get that even asking the uncles may be more aggressive already than it sounds like you're willing to do and rock the boat.)
May parents are approaching 80 and have quite a substantial retirement portfolio. One that would be hard to spend down even if they pay for high quality long term care.
They may choose to bypass my sister and I and give all their money to the grandkids, plus a could of charities. I could very, very, very much use that money (but not desparate because I could also just un-FIRE). I feel weird about my feelings on it.. Not my money and all of that, but also, Dad himself inherited the equivalent of $120k at age 40... which he admits was a huge help to him at that time. I truly think the reason may be that my sister's husband is very well compensated exec and they obviously don't need money, and my parents wanted to always be fair and equal with us, and they don't want to give sis more money that she doesn't need.
On the one hand, i am delighted to have an excellent personal relationship with them. On the other hand, I have a lump of <<feelings>> about the money side which I just look away from.
Does that happen to anyone else? That not-entirely complementary <<feelings>> about inheritance arise despite everything being great otherwise?
For the awful suicide story- yes it was illegal to disinherit the minor child (I assume this was a do it yourself will)- the will was left with the body. There obviously was some disordered thinking going on.
[/quote
Oh, so sad for that family. The repercussions of her actions will never end for them. Good for the ex for stepping up for the kids.
Better then my fella’s grandmother who wanted to be buried with hers. After her passing the family came together and decided this was one wish they would not respect. This is pretty relieving considering they released balloons, sang a Celine dion song at the funeral and kept ashes in a locket.
Well, if the cat was alive, I understand that completely. I knew one woman who left orders that her loyal dog be euthanized after she passed away because she didn't trust anyone to give the dog a good home. Her executor had the dog... executed.
Better then my fella’s grandmother who wanted to be buried with hers. After her passing the family came together and decided this was one wish they would not respect. This is pretty relieving considering they released balloons, sang a Celine dion song at the funeral and kept ashes in a locket.
Well, if the cat was alive, I understand that completely. I knew one woman who left orders that her loyal dog be euthanized after she passed away because she didn't trust anyone to give the dog a good home. Her executor had the dog... executed.
That evokes nature vs nurture debate in my mind.
Better then my fella’s grandmother who wanted to be buried with hers. After her passing the family came together and decided this was one wish they would not respect. This is pretty relieving considering they released balloons, sang a Celine dion song at the funeral and kept ashes in a locket.
Well, if the cat was alive, I understand that completely. I knew one woman who left orders that her loyal dog be euthanized after she passed away because she didn't trust anyone to give the dog a good home. Her executor had the dog... executed.
That evokes nature vs nurture debate in my mind.
I think it was just a pun. I'm sure the executor had the dog peacefully euthanized at a vet.
I'm generally all about being a faithful executor and following the deceased's wishes to the letter, but this is where I personally would draw the line. I would consider this an immoral request, refuse, and fight it legally tooth and nail if anyone objected. Dogs obviously are not close to humans in the sanctity of life, but intentionally killing a loving, loyal companion for no reason other than postmortem jealousy? That's just evil.
May parents are approaching 80 and have quite a substantial retirement portfolio. One that would be hard to spend down even if they pay for high quality long term care.
They may choose to bypass my sister and I and give all their money to the grandkids, plus a could of charities. I could very, very, very much use that money (but not desparate because I could also just un-FIRE). I feel weird about my feelings on it.. Not my money and all of that, but also, Dad himself inherited the equivalent of $120k at age 40... which he admits was a huge help to him at that time. I truly think the reason may be that my sister's husband is very well compensated exec and they obviously don't need money, and my parents wanted to always be fair and equal with us, and they don't want to give sis more money that she doesn't need.
On the one hand, i am delighted to have an excellent personal relationship with them. On the other hand, I have a lump of <<feelings>> about the money side which I just look away from.
Does that happen to anyone else? That not-entirely complementary <<feelings>> about inheritance arise despite everything being great otherwise?
May parents are approaching 80 and have quite a substantial retirement portfolio. One that would be hard to spend down even if they pay for high quality long term care.
They may choose to bypass my sister and I and give all their money to the grandkids, plus a could of charities. I could very, very, very much use that money (but not desparate because I could also just un-FIRE). I feel weird about my feelings on it.. Not my money and all of that, but also, Dad himself inherited the equivalent of $120k at age 40... which he admits was a huge help to him at that time. I truly think the reason may be that my sister's husband is very well compensated exec and they obviously don't need money, and my parents wanted to always be fair and equal with us, and they don't want to give sis more money that she doesn't need.
On the one hand, i am delighted to have an excellent personal relationship with them. On the other hand, I have a lump of <<feelings>> about the money side which I just look away from.
Does that happen to anyone else? That not-entirely complementary <<feelings>> about inheritance arise despite everything being great otherwise?
Are you able to talk to your parents about this? Maybe they could leave the money directly to you and to the grandchildren in lieu of your sister? Would your sister be OK with this? Also, your sister's husband may be a well compensated executive but, what does she earn? Unfortunately, if something were to happen in her marriage she might have financial troubles. Leaving the money directly to her to do what she wants with it seems wise as you just never know and it's important to have your own money not just that of a spouse.
Are you able to talk to your parents about this? Maybe they could leave the money directly to you and to the grandchildren in lieu of your sister? Would your sister be OK with this? Also, your sister's husband may be a well compensated executive but, what does she earn? Unfortunately, if something were to happen in her marriage she might have financial troubles. Leaving the money directly to her to do what she wants with it seems wise as you just never know and it's important to have your own money not just that of a spouse.
So much this.
My Dad's will was worded so that it was clear the inheritance was to my sister and me, and not in any way to our husbands.
But my understanding is that if you co-mingle the funds in any way it could become marital property.Are you able to talk to your parents about this? Maybe they could leave the money directly to you and to the grandchildren in lieu of your sister? Would your sister be OK with this? Also, your sister's husband may be a well compensated executive but, what does she earn? Unfortunately, if something were to happen in her marriage she might have financial troubles. Leaving the money directly to her to do what she wants with it seems wise as you just never know and it's important to have your own money not just that of a spouse.
So much this.
My Dad's will was worded so that it was clear the inheritance was to my sister and me, and not in any way to our husbands.
Better then my fella’s grandmother who wanted to be buried with hers. After her passing the family came together and decided this was one wish they would not respect. This is pretty relieving considering they released balloons, sang a Celine dion song at the funeral and kept ashes in a locket.
Well, if the cat was alive, I understand that completely. I knew one woman who left orders that her loyal dog be euthanized after she passed away because she didn't trust anyone to give the dog a good home. Her executor had the dog... executed.
That evokes nature vs nurture debate in my mind.
I think it was just a pun. I'm sure the executor had the dog peacefully euthanized at a vet.
I'm generally all about being a faithful executor and following the deceased's wishes to the letter, but this is where I personally would draw the line. I would consider this an immoral request, refuse, and fight it legally tooth and nail if anyone objected. Dogs obviously are not close to humans in the sanctity of life, but intentionally killing a loving, loyal companion for no reason other than postmortem jealousy? That's just evil.
Agreed, and to explicitly require it in her will was over the top. I blame the brain cancer that killed the bitch. I didn't find out about what happened until well after the fact because I was living in another country.
Are you able to talk to your parents about this? Maybe they could leave the money directly to you and to the grandchildren in lieu of your sister? Would your sister be OK with this? Also, your sister's husband may be a well compensated executive but, what does she earn? Unfortunately, if something were to happen in her marriage she might have financial troubles. Leaving the money directly to her to do what she wants with it seems wise as you just never know and it's important to have your own money not just that of a spouse.
So much this.
My Dad's will was worded so that it was clear the inheritance was to my sister and me, and not in any way to our husbands.
Bean- you are way nicer than I would be. I have a friend whose sister had two children by artificial insemination- she had a long time partner but she had sole custody and was their only legal parent. When her children were 19 and 12, she and the partner broke up. She rewrote her will leaving her substantial estate to the Humane society and disinheriting both children. She then committed suicide. My friend was able to get the part of the will disinherting the youngest over turned. She then reached a settlement with the Humane society for the 19 year old where they got a sum but the 19 year old got a good chunk. She threatened them with bad publicity taking money from an orphan. Those poor kids.
May parents are approaching 80 and have quite a substantial retirement portfolio. One that would be hard to spend down even if they pay for high quality long term care.
They may choose to bypass my sister and I and give all their money to the grandkids, plus a could of charities. I could very, very, very much use that money (but not desparate because I could also just un-FIRE). I feel weird about my feelings on it.. Not my money and all of that, but also, Dad himself inherited the equivalent of $120k at age 40... which he admits was a huge help to him at that time. I truly think the reason may be that my sister's husband is very well compensated exec and they obviously don't need money, and my parents wanted to always be fair and equal with us, and they don't want to give sis more money that she doesn't need.
On the one hand, i am delighted to have an excellent personal relationship with them. On the other hand, I have a lump of <<feelings>> about the money side which I just look away from.
Does that happen to anyone else? That not-entirely complementary <<feelings>> about inheritance arise despite everything being great otherwise?
Didn't want to thread-jack, and this is a long, drawn out story, so if you are interested, check out the Case Study I just posted:Wow, what an unbelievable headache. I can’t imagine how tough that has been on you. Do you and your sister speak at all? What will she do now that the cash cow has dried up?
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/case-studies/case-studyyou-need-to-plan-for-getting-old-(-what-can-happen-when-you-don't!)/
Didn't want to thread-jack, and this is a long, drawn out story, so if you are interested, check out the Case Study I just posted:Wow, what an unbelievable headache. I can’t imagine how tough that has been on you. Do you and your sister speak at all? What will she do now that the cash cow has dried up?
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/case-studies/case-studyyou-need-to-plan-for-getting-old-(-what-can-happen-when-you-don't!)/
I commented on your other thread. I just wanted to add that I had a sister who wasn't as extreme as yours, but there were similarities. She was such a leech when my parents were alive (unwillingness to work masquerading as caregiving) that their estate was significantly reduced. She also received the lion's share of the physical assets because my sibs outnumbered me. Basically, she took the new-ish car before the assets were divided equally, against the will's instructions. Now that most of the inheritance has been distributed, she has blown through all of her oversized share. She is back to pestering other relatives for loans that she's never going to pay back. Then she doesn't (as we predicted and sternly warned against) and the relatives bug us that she isn't paying back their loans. Sucks.Didn't want to thread-jack, and this is a long, drawn out story, so if you are interested, check out the Case Study I just posted:Wow, what an unbelievable headache. I can’t imagine how tough that has been on you. Do you and your sister speak at all? What will she do now that the cash cow has dried up?
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/case-studies/case-studyyou-need-to-plan-for-getting-old-(-what-can-happen-when-you-don't!)/
I'm slowly starting to feel the weight coming off my shoulders, and it feels GLORIOUS! We haven't spoken in over 6 years, when she hijacked the accounts. She better not ever darken my doorway, there are some things I cannot forgive, and even if I could, I have to be crazy to think that she would change, and I don't like snakes slithering around my home or my real family.
She'll get something decent even after everything is paid, but it won't last long. After that, who knows what she will do. Maybe it will be time for a sugar daddy/momma. Leaches will do what they need to survive!
Maryland.If you have proof of the relationship (maybe birth certificates and driver's license) and a death certificate for the deceased, you should be able to get through the process. Haven't done MD myself, and only reclaimed my own property in Texas.
I have found the online forms. It seems like it might be a ton of paperwork, and they also won't disclose online what or how much property it is . . . so I have no clue if this will be worth the trouble.
My mother-in-law is 90 and starting to give away some of her possessions. She was very involved in social activities, with lots of fancy gowns and jewelry for various events.
She gave me a couple of gold necklaces, one with a 24k stamp, and one with an 18k stamp. My wife doesn't wear yellow gold, so we took them to a local jeweler who buys gold (with MIL's approval). It took them a couple of minutes to come back with an estimate of $0.00. The necklaces were both fake.
I think my FIL bought them while they were on a cruise in the '80s, somewhere in the Middle East. At least they got their money's worth in one respect, as she wore them for many years thinking they were real. We won't say anything to MIL about it, of course. No point telling her now :)
I wonder how much of the remaining jewelry is fake, and how annoyed my crazy SIL will be when she finds out she inherited costume jewelry.
Oh dear. Always best to assume that jewelry is fake . . . then you might be pleasantly surprised!
I had a similar thing happen with some "family silver." It was all silver-plated, which is not worth much. It's pretty, though.
But wait! There's a bonus for my brother! When grandma - who was spending all the money - died, it was kind of around his birthday. As such, he planned a big birthday outing. When the check came at the fancy-pants restaurant, I jokingly went for my wallet and pulled out a TJ Maxx coupon, and he was so disappointed that I would be so cheap. At this, I realized that he expected us to pay for his birthday outing (he was over 30) that he had planned.
And we did! So maybe I'm the asshole here.
I kind of agree that the "question-behind-the-question" is why the household with kids gets 65% while the household without kids should get only 35%. The daughter should have found a more articulate way of expressing this disparity than by asking for the dog (whom the testatrix is likely to outlive) get a share equal to human children.
I kind of agree that the "question-behind-the-question" is why the household with kids gets 65% while the household without kids should get only 35%. The daughter should have found a more articulate way of expressing this disparity than by asking for the dog (whom the testatrix is likely to outlive) get a share equal to human children.
But wait! There's a bonus for my brother! When grandma - who was spending all the money - died, it was kind of around his birthday. As such, he planned a big birthday outing. When the check came at the fancy-pants restaurant, I jokingly went for my wallet and pulled out a TJ Maxx coupon, and he was so disappointed that I would be so cheap. At this, I realized that he expected us to pay for his birthday outing (he was over 30) that he had planned.
And we did! So maybe I'm the asshole here.
I don't think I could spend much time with that sibling. $2K ain't much in the big picture of things for an adult. He ought to be making his own money by that age, not waiting for a hand out.
I'd invite him around for hamburgers on the grill and maybe some beers but not going out to eat without agreements about who was paying what ahead of time.
People can be a mess!
I have a drama that I can laugh at now but not so much at the time. In 2014, my grandmother and mother died within 2 weeks of each other. Shortly before she died, my grandmother had a come-to-Jesus with herself about the irresponsibility of her son, my stepfather. She split her substantial estate into two parts: 50% directly to her daughter, who is very responsible and spent 10 years taking care of Grandma and Grandpa's financial affairs etc. long story. 50% in a spendthrift trust to my stepfather--he only gets the income, the principal is split between his kids (including the stepkids, which was nice of her--these folks really are my family, my mom and stepfather were together starting from when I was about 4) when the time comes. The irresponsibility relates to his lifetime of drug and alcohol abuse that made my childhood and a substantial part of my adulthood hell.Wow.
Stepdad didn't take it well. He actually called me (the judgmental one, ha ha) on the phone and said, and I quote, "IT SHOULD BE MY MONEY. IF I WANT TO SPEND IT ALL ON HOOKERS AND BLOW, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT."
Me: "Uh, you literally could have called any of the other 7 billion people on the planet and received a more sympathetic hearing than you're getting from me, bub.
Also, he's now harassing my aunt (the trustee! lucky lucky her!) because he wants 200K of the principal to pay off his back taxes in a house he and my mom destroyed through animal hoarding and is 500 miles from where he now resides.
And that's why I moved to another continent.
I feel bad for the trustee but he should be happy he gets anything at all. I think there should be a clause if he contests any part of the arrangement, he gets NOTHING. That's what I would do in that situation.We just signed trust paperwork last week and there is language like that in there. It was pretty incredible actually. Not only do you get nothing if you contest but it is as though you pre-deceased us with no issue, meaning that the offspring of the person contesting get nothing either.
Really? Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves). How is that conscionable? So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.
In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate. Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated. (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)
Really? Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves). How is that conscionable? So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.
In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate. Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated. (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)
That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son.
This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad. He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money. Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.
There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares.
Really? Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves). How is that conscionable? So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.
In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate. Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated. (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)
That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son.
This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad. He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money. Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.
There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares.
Probably an urban legend, but a friend once told me a story about a relative who wanted to disinherit a couple of kids due to their greedy, irresponsible financial ways, but still leave things to others. To not make it look like they were being left out unintentionally, the will stated "To [list of people being disinherited], I leave for each of you $1, so that you may someday learn it's value."
Sick burn from beyond the grave.[/list]
Really? Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves). How is that conscionable? So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.
In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate. Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated. (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)
That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son.
This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad. He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money. Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.
There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares.
I'm not an attorney, but I do not understand how a clause withdrawing any distribution that is triggered by contesting the will is conscionable.
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
Really? Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves). How is that conscionable? So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.
In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate. Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated. (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)
That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son.
This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad. He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money. Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.
There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares.
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
Disagree. The reason I wouldn't give money to my kid who will spend it all on magic beans is not bc I care about the money; it's bc I care about my kid who I fear might blow it all and end up broke. This is not my situation but if I was worried about one kid whether he's physically, mentally, emotionally, or psychiatrically disabled or a jerk or just irresponsible or gullible or immature or naive, then I can see setting up a trust or something that let's him have a bit at a time or whatever. I persoanlly would leave it all equal with istructions as to what I think they should do with it but will also spend my time before I die trying to teach them the MMM lessons. I might just refer them to this site in my will!I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
Um...because the $ will be better spent by a reasonable and responsible person instead of wasted? If I end up old and with $, you can be damn sure I wouldn't give it to the person I know will waste it. That $ can do so much more for the frugal and investing person, the ones who took after their old man. I'd rather my frugal kid buy a rental or pay for the grandkids' school vs the wasteful kid spending it all on hookers and blow.
As others have said above, whatever an old person wants to do with their hard-earned $ is their choice. No one deserves anything. I also like the idea of cutting someone out if they contest the will. You don't deserve it in the first place, it's not your $...so if you contest, you get what you actually deserve, which is zero :)
Much as I love it here, I hope this place is dead and gone long before you are!Disagree. The reason I wouldn't give money to my kid who will spend it all on magic beans is not bc I care about the money; it's bc I care about my kid who I fear might blow it all and end up broke. This is not my situation but if I was worried about one kid whether he's physically, mentally, emotionally, or psychiatrically disabled or a jerk or just irresponsible or gullible or immature or naive, then I can see setting up a trust or something that let's him have a bit at a time or whatever. I persoanlly would leave it all equal with istructions as to what I think they should do with it but will also spend my time before I die trying to teach them the MMM lessons. I might just refer them to this site in my will!I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
Um...because the $ will be better spent by a reasonable and responsible person instead of wasted? If I end up old and with $, you can be damn sure I wouldn't give it to the person I know will waste it. That $ can do so much more for the frugal and investing person, the ones who took after their old man. I'd rather my frugal kid buy a rental or pay for the grandkids' school vs the wasteful kid spending it all on hookers and blow.
As others have said above, whatever an old person wants to do with their hard-earned $ is their choice. No one deserves anything. I also like the idea of cutting someone out if they contest the will. You don't deserve it in the first place, it's not your $...so if you contest, you get what you actually deserve, which is zero :)
Exactly. Why not give it equally and if you have one kid that you think might spend it all on hookers or blow, then put it in a trust so they can only spend the income and the principle can remain for generations.Disagree. The reason I wouldn't give money to my kid who will spend it all on magic beans is not bc I care about the money; it's bc I care about my kid who I fear might blow it all and end up broke. This is not my situation but if I was worried about one kid whether he's physically, mentally, emotionally, or psychiatrically disabled or a jerk or just irresponsible or gullible or immature or naive, then I can see setting up a trust or something that let's him have a bit at a time or whatever. I persoanlly would leave it all equal with istructions as to what I think they should do with it but will also spend my time before I die trying to teach them the MMM lessons. I might just refer them to this site in my will!I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
Um...because the $ will be better spent by a reasonable and responsible person instead of wasted? If I end up old and with $, you can be damn sure I wouldn't give it to the person I know will waste it. That $ can do so much more for the frugal and investing person, the ones who took after their old man. I'd rather my frugal kid buy a rental or pay for the grandkids' school vs the wasteful kid spending it all on hookers and blow.
As others have said above, whatever an old person wants to do with their hard-earned $ is their choice. No one deserves anything. I also like the idea of cutting someone out if they contest the will. You don't deserve it in the first place, it's not your $...so if you contest, you get what you actually deserve, which is zero :)
Funny, I was single until late in life. All along, I had named my siblings as equal benefactors. When my parents died, they pulled some shit. One in particular. Surprisingly, the others backed her. Sucks for them. After a lot of careful thought, they will receive very significantly reduced gifts. And the black sheep? Sucks more for her. The amount she stole from our parents while they were alive and shystered after they were gone just might be about the same (or less) than what she would have received from my estate.
Oh, and her lion's share of my parent's estate? Presumably gone. She recently hit up a wealthy relative for $1500. Against firmly worded advice, the relative made the "loan". Black sheep subsequently received about twice that when a small payout was received from the estate. She did not repay the relative's loan. Now the relative is complaining plaintively to the very people who strongly advised her against making the loan. What? La la la, I can't hear you.
I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
Damn, ysette! I'm having a rough morning dealing with our flip partner's BS, and this literally made me LOL. Thanks for lightening my mood. I needed that!I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
Hard to be sure about that.I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
Especially with what is available for free online nowadays, there is no excuse for not learning to do some things for yourself. And like they say, often times a home cooked meal is better than what you can get in a restaurant.I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
On the other hand, sometimes outsourcing to a qualified person gets the best result. Fortunately, in this case, the skills of amateurs do equal those of professionals, so it is possible to get excellent results with a relatively frugal attitude, and minor investment in basic equiment and hardware.
Damn, ysette! I'm having a rough morning dealing with our flip partner's BS, and this literally made me LOL. Thanks for lightening my mood. I needed that!I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
Exactly. Why not give it equally and if you have one kid that you think might spend it all on hookers or blow, then put it in a trust so they can only spend the income and the principle can remain for generations.
I just don't get why anyone would want to hurt their child after they die by cutting them out. Not only that but it will put a huge strain on that kid and their siblings. So in trying to save your legacy from being wasted away, you just leave behind a wake of resentment and hurt. Sad.
I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
Child molesters, wife beaters, and rapists are in a different category though.
How do those types fit into anyone's inheritance planning? Where's the "fair & equal" when demented actions are concerned? Things like that tend to make a mess of the "fair & equal" equation.
Blow & hookers aren't the worst things your heirs can get into.
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?
Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way. Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.
The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.
That's my take on it.
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?
Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way. Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.
The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.
That's my take on it.
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?
Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way. Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.
The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.
That's my take on it.
thanks for the sweeping generalizations. in this case its my sister who stopped talking to me 20 years ago. my only regret is that it wasn't sooner. my parents lasted another ten years before she cut them off as well. The egregious final action that my parents did - went on holiday at christmas to FLorida to see their other grandchilden and didn't buy xmas presents for the grandkids in England. who were well past 18 an didn't ever send thanks for presents they'd received or ever visit. Literally the first words from my sisters mount upon their return - "where are the presents". She's a disgrace who deserves everything she gets. which will be nothing.
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?
Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way. Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.
The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.
That's my take on it.
thanks for the sweeping generalizations. in this case its my sister who stopped talking to me 20 years ago. my only regret is that it wasn't sooner. my parents lasted another ten years before she cut them off as well. The egregious final action that my parents did - went on holiday at christmas to FLorida to see their other grandchilden and didn't buy xmas presents for the grandkids in England. who were well past 18 an didn't ever send thanks for presents they'd received or ever visit. Literally the first words from my sisters mount upon their return - "where are the presents". She's a disgrace who deserves everything she gets. which will be nothing.
Yeah, holy moly on the assumptions. Sometimes there's a reason someone stopped speaking to someone else, sometimes it's irrational. Sometimes it's the person who was cut off, sometimes it's the one who did the cutting out and sometimes it's both. There's no 99.9% repeating here for why.
I just learned yesterday that my aunt died 4 days prior from cancer. Had no idea she had cancer, because my uncle stopped speaking to my dad 17 years ago around my grandfather's funeral. He's never really said why, though when pressed early on, he did go off on a tirade apparently about not liking my mom's Christmas letters recounting the year's activities. Such an egregious offense! My grandmother likes to pretend that things are fine between them, so she has no idea why he stopped (and my dad is reluctant to put his nephew in the middle by asking him about it). Uncle lives near grandma and we don't, so we're trying to figure out how to ensure we'll actually be notified when grandma passes so we can make it for the funeral, other than calling every day and panicking upon no response which seems overkill. (Parents are going to talk to her neighbor and delicately to nephew. If anyone else has suggestions, please share.)
What about you reaching out to your cousin to keep connected? Keeps him from having to feel like he's in the middle of his parents and yours.
And that would be the 0.000000000000000000000001% case.
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?
Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way. Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.
The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.
That's my take on it.
thanks for the sweeping generalizations. in this case its my sister who stopped talking to me 20 years ago. my only regret is that it wasn't sooner. my parents lasted another ten years before she cut them off as well. The egregious final action that my parents did - went on holiday at christmas to FLorida to see their other grandchilden and didn't buy xmas presents for the grandkids in England. who were well past 18 an didn't ever send thanks for presents they'd received or ever visit. Literally the first words from my sisters mount upon their return - "where are the presents". She's a disgrace who deserves everything she gets. which will be nothing.
Re the no contact situations - From the outside, you've really got no way to tell for sure what the issue is. It is quite interesting however that there's a group of situations that basically come down to someone is toxic/abusive/manipulative/generally nasty, so when the people around them eventually get tired of the abuse and cut them off, they say they have no idea why. Mental illness or personality disorders can be at play as well.+1
There's a website that has a lot of information about estranged parents, and is often recommended to people who are the victims in these types of situations. It's quite interesting.
http://www.issendai.com/index.htm
Out of the fog is also helpful for some people in or around toxic people.
https://outofthefog.website/
It's also important to note that people who have generally loving, non-abusive families and social circles frequently are unable (at least without a lot of thought) to understand that Sally didn't cut off her mother for no reason, and maybe Sally's mother is actually really abusive, even if they've never seen the behavior themselves. These bystanders can inadvertently cause a lot of problems, and can in turn be cut off by Sally in order to protect herself.
It can also explain why you'll see very interesting internet threads - as we've got going here. UnLeashHell appears to have experience with this type of dysfunction, or something similar, and responded based on that experience. Other posters have pushed back because of the broad and seemingly black and white generalization.
Bottom line - families come in every variety, good and bad. If you're dealing with one of the bad ones, maybe some of this info will. If you're not, a bit of compassion for those who are or may be isn't a bad thing.
People don't act rationally. You can raise two children the exact same way in the exact same household under the exact same circumstances, and they will most likely grow up to be very different people. When a child goes down the wrong path, parents are going to "look in the mirror" and blame themselves, even if they did their jobs as parents correctly.
It is perfectly understandable to not leave equal shares to children if you believe that leaving money to someone will do them more harm than good.
@SwordGuy do you have children?
People don't act rationally. You can raise two children the exact same way in the exact same household under the exact same circumstances, and they will most likely grow up to be very different people. When a child goes down the wrong path, parents are going to "look in the mirror" and blame themselves, even if they did their jobs as parents correctly.
It is perfectly understandable to not leave equal shares to children if you believe that leaving money to someone will do them more harm than good.
@SwordGuy do you have children?
I agree with everything you just said.
My point in the earlier post was that it is very rare for children to outright refuse to deal with their parents unless the parents have really acted up. Lots of mooches. Lots of dysfunctional family dynamics. Lots of not going the extra mile to visit parents who are a nuisance. But for a child to completely sever parental ties? I don't think that's very common indeed when there's no good reason. I've heard of many cases where children have done so because their parents are thieves, or addicts, or violent, or vicious, or controlling. All perfectly good reasons. Plenty of cases where the kid doesn't take any action to maintain contact but accepts parental contact. But refusing to have contact with one's parents for no good reason? That's a very drastic step with no rational benefit. So, sure, crazy people might do it, but crazy people often need to mooch because they can't get other things in their life working either.
I'm not saying it happens. I'm not disputing anyone's assertion that it happened in their family. I'm just saying I think it's extremely rare.
And yes, I have children. I have a wife with siblings. 3 in her family are great, 1 is a selfish, self-entitled ass -- who mooches off her parents. I have lots of friends with siblings. I watch and observe. I listen and I read about other's stories.
So, I'll readily admit that's all my opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Sorry if the percentages to the ludicrous number of digits I listed didn't give that away. :)
Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?
A lot of these stories seem to center on people who were mean or greedy or stupid before any inheritance, and the legacy was just a bigger field for them to play on. Has anyone seen a family where everyone got along well, and you wouldn't expect drama, but things changed when an inheritance was involved?
Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.I don't know about the legal side of things, but secrecy is going to be hard to enforce, especially when A and B are individuals who likely have some connection to each other. I suppose you could say "person A gets $25k and the remainder goes to Charity X," with instructions not to reveal what that remainder is, but I don't know that there's a way to make sure the executor doesn't reveal the amount, or to make sure Person A can't somehow get the info from the charity.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?
My siblings and I were VERY well organized and knew it was to be an even split. We were very congenial during all the meetings, lawyer visits, and text/email traffic on decisions. We have zero arguments about anything related to that process and know that our relationship is more important than any amount of money. We met the day after our dad's funeral to discuss our feelings. I said quite plainly that the only thing that mattered to me with the process is that we kept our relationship together. Everyone else agreed right away and that was forefront in our minds as we discussed anything.That's fantastic that your family was able to handle it all so maturely. I hope the same happens in my family when the time comes.
Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.Yes. I had a friend who loaned me money, at his suggestion, when I was buying a house. He liked to make small loans to friends because he enjoyed having a steady stream of checks rolling in each month*. I'd been making payments as scheduled when he died**, about five years later. In his will, it just said he forgave any money he had loaned to me. Our mutual friend (and current flip partner, if anyone's following that adventure) was absolutely dying to know the value of his "gift", but I never told. After five years of payments, there wasn't much balance left, but I appreciated the clean slate. No way will I ever share the details with her. I think she expected more from his estate and imagines I sucked away some huge amount of cash. Nope.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?
Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.Yes. I had a friend who loaned me money, at his suggestion, when I was buying a house. He liked to make small loans to friends because he enjoyed having a steady stream of checks rolling in each month*. I'd been making payments as scheduled when he died**, about five years later. In his will, it just said he forgave any money he had loaned to me. Our mutual friend (and current flip partner, if anyone's following that adventure) was absolutely dying to know the value of his "gift", but I never told. After five years of payments, there wasn't much balance left, but I appreciated the clean slate. No way will I ever share the details with her. I think she expected more from his estate and imagines I sucked away some huge amount of cash. Nope.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?
*My friend wasn't stupid. The only condition of the loan was that I buy cheap term life insurance for 3x the loan amount, naming him as the beneficiary, until it was paid off. I gladly paid it until he passed away. Smart man. BTW, he knew how hard I was working to earn the money for the DP. He came to me with the offer; I was not seeking loans from anyone. I worked on commission, and he was my movie/theater buddy. About the third time I said no to a movie because I was working, he hatched this scheme. I knew he did it for others, some of whom had gone belly up and stiffed him. There was zero chance of that happening with me, so I said yes.
Gosh, I never realized this little tale might qualify as an inheritance drama story. Maybe to someone else, but not to me.
**My friend was considerably older, so his death was not unexpected. I worked every day, then spent the night on his tiny sofa every night for the last ten days of his life in case he needed anything during the night. Got up, went home, showered, went to work. I was on my way to his house after work when I got the call from our mutual friend that he had just died. I went straight there to say my goodbyes. Very surreal to spend time with the body of a loved one immediately after they've passed. Oh, I still miss him so! RIP, Waynn, with two N's and no E.
It's also important to note that people who have generally loving, non-abusive families and social circles frequently are unable (at least without a lot of thought) to understand that Sally didn't cut off her mother for no reason, and maybe Sally's mother is actually really abusive, even if they've never seen the behavior themselves.
From the outside looking in, it can be extremely hard to tell whether the person ending the contact is the abusive or manipulative person. My general rule is to look at the person doing the cutting off. Do they have *any* old friends, family members, or community members with whom they are consistently in contact? If the answer is no, that person is likely to be the problem. Likewise, are they basically functioning or are they dependent on others? If they're dependent on others and are not consistently self-supporting, the isolated person has probably burned through a lot of other supporters and do-gooders before they got to you. There are bound to be mutual friends and acquaintances; asking around to see whether a person whose opinion and character you trust has been burned by that individual is often a good way to tell whether you should invite the exiled individual into your life.
The cutting-off behavior is extremely common in families where there's addiction or abuse. In those families, people who behave badly are always entitled to the relationship and/or resources they want from the people they mistreat, no matter what. If you want to participate in family activities, you're required to (a) tolerate abuse, (b) not talk about it, and (c) help protect the person who's continuing to dish it out. Only the problem person's experience matters, and the rest of the family is so used to tiptoeing around the most dramatic and destructive individual that if someone on the receiving end of bad behavior dares to speak up or to protect himself/herself, that person is punished by being excluded from the family.
The other very common behavior is for the person who wants to live an abuse-free life to be the one to build some distance into the relationship. If the rest of the family tries to pressure the escapee to kowtow and to submit to more abuse, it's generally because every single person applying the pressure is in full flying monkey mode. Many of them like to feel like they are accomplishing something extremely good by reeling the escaped punching bag back in so that the toxic or abusive person can have another go. Others are tired of wiping the butt of whoever is screwing up, and realize that if they can bulldoze over the escapee's boundaries they can substitute the human escapee to be used as human toilet paper.
A third very common behavior is for someone to go into a snit and cut off friends or family members as a manipulation tool: "if you don't do this for me, or if you don't give me that, then you'll never see me again." My daughter was always cutting off friends or relatives to punish them for asserting their own boundaries. When she did it to me at age 18, I happily gave her all of her belongings and helped her move out, but her resolve to have nothing to do with me evaporated once she wanted money. There are lots of people who behave this way: when they well runs dry and they can't take anything more from you, or if you need something from them or are politely holding them accountable for their behavior, they find a reason to end contact until there's something else they want.
From the outside looking in, it can be extremely hard to tell whether the person ending the contact is the abusive or manipulative person. My general rule is to look at the person doing the cutting off. Do they have *any* old friends, family members, or community members with whom they are consistently in contact? If the answer is no, that person is likely to be the problem. Likewise, are they basically functioning or are they dependent on others? If they're dependent on others and are not consistently self-supporting, the isolated person has probably burned through a lot of other supporters and do-gooders before they got to you. There are bound to be mutual friends and acquaintances; asking around to see whether a person whose opinion and character you trust has been burned by that individual is often a good way to tell whether you should invite the exiled individual into your life.
...
The only item in dispute that I'm aware of is how often children cut off contact from their parents when the parents have done NOTHING wrong. (And I'm not counting flouncing off and then conveniently (and quickly) forgetting the cut off contact, I'm only counting a permanent cut of all ties.) I maintain that's extremely rare.
Uh, inventory? What inventory?Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.Yes. I had a friend who loaned me money, at his suggestion, when I was buying a house. He liked to make small loans to friends because he enjoyed having a steady stream of checks rolling in each month*. I'd been making payments as scheduled when he died**, about five years later. In his will, it just said he forgave any money he had loaned to me. Our mutual friend (and current flip partner, if anyone's following that adventure) was absolutely dying to know the value of his "gift", but I never told. After five years of payments, there wasn't much balance left, but I appreciated the clean slate. No way will I ever share the details with her. I think she expected more from his estate and imagines I sucked away some huge amount of cash. Nope.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?
*My friend wasn't stupid. The only condition of the loan was that I buy cheap term life insurance for 3x the loan amount, naming him as the beneficiary, until it was paid off. I gladly paid it until he passed away. Smart man. BTW, he knew how hard I was working to earn the money for the DP. He came to me with the offer; I was not seeking loans from anyone. I worked on commission, and he was my movie/theater buddy. About the third time I said no to a movie because I was working, he hatched this scheme. I knew he did it for others, some of whom had gone belly up and stiffed him. There was zero chance of that happening with me, so I said yes.
Gosh, I never realized this little tale might qualify as an inheritance drama story. Maybe to someone else, but not to me.
**My friend was considerably older, so his death was not unexpected. I worked every day, then spent the night on his tiny sofa every night for the last ten days of his life in case he needed anything during the night. Got up, went home, showered, went to work. I was on my way to his house after work when I got the call from our mutual friend that he had just died. I went straight there to say my goodbyes. Very surreal to spend time with the body of a loved one immediately after they've passed. Oh, I still miss him so! RIP, Waynn, with two N's and no E.
Where I practice, that loan/note would be an asset of the estate and would get listed on the Inventory, which is to be provided to every beneficiary under the Will (and any other interested party of the estate, including known creditors).
But that's a sweet story and a nice friendship you had.
It's also important to note that people who have generally loving, non-abusive families and social circles frequently are unable (at least without a lot of thought) to understand that Sally didn't cut off her mother for no reason, and maybe Sally's mother is actually really abusive, even if they've never seen the behavior themselves.From the outside looking in, it can be extremely hard to tell whether the person ending the contact is the abusive or manipulative person. My general rule is to look at the person doing the cutting off. Do they have *any* old friends, family members, or community members with whom they are consistently in contact? If the answer is no, that person is likely to be the problem. Likewise, are they basically functioning or are they dependent on others? If they're dependent on others and are not consistently self-supporting, the isolated person has probably burned through a lot of other supporters and do-gooders before they got to you. There are bound to be mutual friends and acquaintances; asking around to see whether a person whose opinion and character you trust has been burned by that individual is often a good way to tell whether you should invite the exiled individual into your life.
I have appreciated your (almost certainly hard-earned) insight, @Sibley and @TheGrimSqueaker .
I’m estranged from my sibling and have been estranged from my parents in the past (we have a guarded relationship now). My parents see the estrangement of their children as a failure that reflects badly on them, and so really want to throw a bandaid on it (for appearances’ sake and to check that off their list).
About a year ago they approached me under the guise of “discussing their end-of-life arrangements”, but it was really an attempt to try to bribe me (with an eventual inheritance) into putting a bandaid onto that estrangement. When I told them my children and I neither needed nor expected any inheritance they were furious. (In hindsight I should have outright requested that nothing be left to us. I guess I will should they ever bring this up again.) This episode pushed me to accept that in spite of all the excuses I make for them, my parents really do exhibit manipulative and controlling behaviour towards me (I already grasped that they treated me much more like a possession or an employee than like a person). I was also really sad to realize they thought that I could be bought. (I initiated those estrangements when I was young and alone and had not much safety margin to support myself. If I wasn’t going to be manipulated in exchange for money then, why would I be now when I am older and have saved my own money and have my own family?)
Even just recounting that little episode feels gross. 🤮
My siblings and I were VERY well organized and knew it was to be an even split. We were very congenial during all the meetings, lawyer visits, and text/email traffic on decisions. We have zero arguments about anything related to that process and know that our relationship is more important than any amount of money. We met the day after our dad's funeral to discuss our feelings. I said quite plainly that the only thing that mattered to me with the process is that we kept our relationship together. Everyone else agreed right away and that was forefront in our minds as we discussed anything.
I had a friend who loaned me money, at his suggestion, when I was buying a house. He liked to make small loans to friends because he enjoyed having a steady stream of checks rolling in each month*. I'd been making payments as scheduled when he died**, about five years later. In his will, it just said he forgave any money he had loaned to me.
[...]
**My friend was considerably older, so his death was not unexpected. I worked every day, then spent the night on his tiny sofa every night for the last ten days of his life in case he needed anything during the night. Got up, went home, showered, went to work. I was on my way to his house after work when I got the call from our mutual friend that he had just died. I went straight there to say my goodbyes. Very surreal to spend time with the body of a loved one immediately after they've passed. Oh, I still miss him so! RIP, Waynn, with two N's and no E.
I suspect your wise and generous friend also recognized that you were wise with your limited money, and therefore a lower risk of defaulting.Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.*My friend wasn't stupid. The only condition of the loan was that I buy cheap term life insurance for 3x the loan amount, naming him as the beneficiary, until it was paid off. I gladly paid it until he passed away. Smart man. BTW, he knew how hard I was working to earn the money for the DP. He came to me with the offer; I was not seeking loans from anyone. I worked on commission, and he was my movie/theater buddy. About the third time I said no to a movie because I was working, he hatched this scheme. I knew he did it for others, some of whom had gone belly up and stiffed him. There was zero chance of that happening with me, so I said yes.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?
Just to shorten this discussion, everyone so far is in agreement that reasonable people cut off contact with family members who are awful in some manner. This is not in dispute and needs no defending.
The only item in dispute that I'm aware of is how often children cut off contact from their parents when the parents have done NOTHING wrong. (And I'm not counting flouncing off and then conveniently (and quickly) forgetting the cut off contact, I'm only counting a permanent cut of all ties.) I maintain that's extremely rare.
Uh, inventory? What inventory?
Where I practice, that loan/note would be an asset of the estate and would get listed on the Inventory, which is to be provided to every beneficiary under the Will (and any other interested party of the estate, including known creditors).
But that's a sweet story and a nice friendship you had.
Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.I don't know about the legal side of things, but secrecy is going to be hard to enforce, especially when A and B are individuals who likely have some connection to each other. I suppose you could say "person A gets $25k and the remainder goes to Charity X," with instructions not to reveal what that remainder is, but I don't know that there's a way to make sure the executor doesn't reveal the amount, or to make sure Person A can't somehow get the info from the charity.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?My siblings and I were VERY well organized and knew it was to be an even split. We were very congenial during all the meetings, lawyer visits, and text/email traffic on decisions. We have zero arguments about anything related to that process and know that our relationship is more important than any amount of money. We met the day after our dad's funeral to discuss our feelings. I said quite plainly that the only thing that mattered to me with the process is that we kept our relationship together. Everyone else agreed right away and that was forefront in our minds as we discussed anything.That's fantastic that your family was able to handle it all so maturely. I hope the same happens in my family when the time comes.
This would be a case where person A probably wouldn't want person B to know how much A received either. Imagine you leave $50k to one cousin-A (for example) and $25k to another cousin-B, perhaps in part because cousin B is greedy, hasn't had a meaningful relationship with you, etc. You'd prefer to avoid the drama that you suspect would come with B finding out he's been "cheated". And A wouldn't want B to know either, lest B give A a hard time. It would also make B more likely to challenge the will.
And if A and B are from different nuclear families, A would have little relationship with B.
So A would have no reason to spill the beans to B, and everyone, including B, would be happier not knowing s/he got less. But it sounds like that's not possible.
Hmmm, does having a trust avoid probate? Could that have been why there was no inventory done?Uh, inventory? What inventory?
Where I practice, that loan/note would be an asset of the estate and would get listed on the Inventory, which is to be provided to every beneficiary under the Will (and any other interested party of the estate, including known creditors).
But that's a sweet story and a nice friendship you had.
Here, the Inventory of the decedent's assets is a pleading that must be filed with the probate court. It's literally a list of items owned by the decedent in his own name, whether bank accounts, investment accounts, real estate, cash, tangible personal property, etc., that don't have either a joint owner with right of survivorship or a beneficiary (pay-on-death or transfer-on-death beneficiary).
..........................any money I would get is going to a domestic violence charity.............
You never know what goes on behind closed doors. My dad tells everyone he has no idea why I've cut him off. In my hometown everyone is angry at me because I'm such an uncaring daughter.
I grew up in a family where domestic violence was just a normal part of daily life and severed ties after a particularly bad incident when I was 23. I've cut him out off my will in a way that cannot be contested. I hope he has removed me from his will too, any money I would get is going to a domestic violence charity.
Reading Grimsqeaker’s list of who is likely to blame in estrangements, it doesn't help me figure out what happened in DH’s family. His niece stopped speaking to her parents ten years ago, about the time she graduated from college.
[...]
Before she went to college she was really tied to her mothers apron strings, So this pulling apart is doubly odd.
Hmmm, does having a trust avoid probate?It does, in my state.
If your careful and smart, you can avoid probate altogether without a trust. Just do all the paperwork and it's possible. You would still need a will, "just in case". But nobody would ever see it unless they contested one of the beneficiaries (for TOD, POD, etc)
Reading Grimsqeaker’s list of who is likely to blame in estrangements, it doesn't help me figure out what happened in DH’s family. His niece stopped speaking to her parents ten years ago, about the time she graduated from college.
[...]
Before she went to college she was really tied to her mothers apron strings, So this pulling apart is doubly odd.
Could it be that it had to be all or nothing? Maybe the mother couldn't/wouldn't let the daughter be independent, so she had to sever all ties? Just speculating.
Hmmm, does having a trust avoid probate?It does, in my state.
Source: got my trust done last month.
If your careful and smart, you can avoid probate altogether without a trust. Just do all the paperwork and it's possible. You would still need a will, "just in case". But nobody would ever see it unless they contested one of the beneficiaries (for TOD, POD, etc)
Reading Grimsqeaker’s list of who is likely to blame in estrangements, it doesn't help me figure out what happened in DH’s family. His niece stopped speaking to her parents ten years ago, about the time she graduated from college.
[...]
Before she went to college she was really tied to her mothers apron strings, So this pulling apart is doubly odd.
Could it be that it had to be all or nothing? Maybe the mother couldn't/wouldn't let the daughter be independent, so she had to sever all ties? Just speculating.
I have thought about that, and it’s possible, but I do think of something more than that.
My Dad died very suddenly 30 years ago. My older sister and her husband lived nearby and drove Mom around to the mortuary and cemetery to make the arrangements while I stayed home to field the phone. (I was 20 and in college.)Ugh.
When they returned home, sister and BIL caught me alone and asked, "Does Mom have any money?"
I knew my parents frugal ways as well as I knew their spendthrift ways so I answered evasively, "I don't know. Why?"
"Well, you know, Mom's so upset that we've paid for everything today but we don't know if Mom has any money to pay us back."
"I don't know. You'll have to ask her."
Once they left, I told Mom about the exchange. She silently got up and brought back her checkbook, where she--as always--had meticulously recorded every expense that she had paid that day.
I have no idea what they thought they might get or why.
They moved out of state several years later and didn't bother to visit Mom for 16 years. When she finally did visit, my sister took the opportunity to ask my Mom who was going to get the house. Mom told her that she was leaving it to me since I was the only one who had been there for her. Sister stormed out of the house and didn't return, not even for Mom's funeral last year.
Mom left her and my brother $25K each. She told me many times, "They don't deserve anything, but if I don't give them something they'll never leave you alone."
Right after the cashier's check cleared, BIL posted a picture of his shiny new pickup on his Facebook page.
She knew them very well indeed.
... they were too broke to get divorced.
Reading Grimsqeaker’s list of who is likely to blame in estrangements, it doesn't help me figure out what happened in DH’s family. His niece stopped speaking to her parents ten years ago, about the time she graduated from college.
[...]
Before she went to college she was really tied to her mothers apron strings, So this pulling apart is doubly odd.
Could it be that it had to be all or nothing? Maybe the mother couldn't/wouldn't let the daughter be independent, so she had to sever all ties? Just speculating.
I have thought about that, and it’s possible, but I do think of something more than that.
Estrangement is what happens when at least one half of the estranged pair believes that the maximum safe level of contact is zero. Whether the belief has a basis in fact-- whether the person who insists on and then enforces zero contact-- depends a lot on how both sides of the estranged pair handle boundaries.
A lot of families don't do boundaries well, and kids who grow up in those families generally end up thinking that their only available options for relationships are "close and unhealthy" or "zero". In reality there's plenty of spots in between that can sometimes be viable. There are plenty of families that allow one or more people to bulldoze over children's boundaries without ever crossing the line into the kind of abuse that gets legal authorities involved.
My sister used to work at a (nice) retirement home. And there were some people who were estranged from their kids. Sometimes she said you could tell why from their personalities why (they were a pill to everyone), other times, you couldn't. But what she said was far more common was kids who weren't estranged but just didn't have time for the parent(s) anymore. They would get a call on their birthday, maybe come by once a year around christmas, but other than that their kids didn't visit. Some of the kids lived nearby (within an hour). Of course doesn't know everything but according to my sister some of these people were really sweet, and she thought it was so sad they seemed forgotten by their children. If anything I think my sister got a little over-involved while she was dining room manager there, because she loved to schedule and plan various events and activities during the holidays and hang out with them and let them talk and reminisce.
The cutting-off behavior is extremely common in families where there's addiction or abuse. In those families, people who behave badly are always entitled to the relationship and/or resources they want from the people they mistreat, no matter what. If you want to participate in family activities, you're required to (a) tolerate abuse, (b) not talk about it, and (c) help protect the person who's continuing to dish it out. Only the problem person's experience matters, and the rest of the family is so used to tiptoeing around the most dramatic and destructive individual that if someone on the receiving end of bad behavior dares to speak up or to protect himself/herself, that person is punished by being excluded from the family.
The other very common behavior is for the person who wants to live an abuse-free life to be the one to build some distance into the relationship. If the rest of the family tries to pressure the escapee to kowtow and to submit to more abuse, it's generally because every single person applying the pressure is in full flying monkey mode. Many of them like to feel like they are accomplishing something extremely good by reeling the escaped punching bag back in so that the toxic or abusive person can have another go. Others are tired of wiping the butt of whoever is screwing up, and realize that if they can bulldoze over the escapee's boundaries they can substitute the human escapee to be used as human toilet paper.
A third very common behavior is for someone to go into a snit and cut off friends or family members as a manipulation tool: "if you don't do this for me, or if you don't give me that, then you'll never see me again." My daughter was always cutting off friends or relatives to punish them for asserting their own boundaries. When she did it to me at age 18, I happily gave her all of her belongings and helped her move out, but her resolve to have nothing to do with me evaporated once she wanted money. There are lots of people who behave this way: when they well runs dry and they can't take anything more from you, or if you need something from them or are politely holding them accountable for their behavior, they find a reason to end contact until there's something else they want.
From the outside looking in, it can be extremely hard to tell whether the person ending the contact is the abusive or manipulative person. My general rule is to look at the person doing the cutting off. Do they have *any* old friends, family members, or community members with whom they are consistently in contact? If the answer is no, that person is likely to be the problem. Likewise, are they basically functioning or are they dependent on others? If they're dependent on others and are not consistently self-supporting, the isolated person has probably burned through a lot of other supporters and do-gooders before they got to you. There are bound to be mutual friends and acquaintances; asking around to see whether a person whose opinion and character you trust has been burned by that individual is often a good way to tell whether you should invite the exiled individual into your life.
Late to the party, but here's one point of anecdata about a child who cut off her parents for no real reason:
I met this friend (call her Anna) in college. Nice enough person, ended up dating my then-bf's roommate, so we all spent a lot of time together. She was one of those people who loved to be "quirky", and she had a tendency for the dramatic, but not to any extreme extent.
Anna would always complain about her parents, and say that XYZ thing that they did was all because of being "overbearing" older, adoptive parents. But the stuff she would say was stuff like, "they called me to check in, like they do EVERY weekend". Stuff my parents, who were neither older nor adoptive, did all the time. Or, like "I was home for Christmas and they wanted me to wake up to go out for breakfast with them!". Yeah, admittedly annoying when you're used to a college sleep schedule, but not unexpected.
We've drifted apart since college, but we're still FB friends, and Anne occasionally posts stuff like "FYI, I'm not in touch with my parents, so if they contact you asking if I'm OK, don't tell them anything." While it's true that you can never know what goes on in another family, given her flair for the dramatic, if there was something else going on like abuse, I have no doubt at all she would've shared it with me.
I don't think Anne herself has any severe personality issues; I think she's just convinced herself that her parents are bad parents and proceeds accordingly.
Late to the party, but here's one point of anecdata about a child who cut off her parents for no real reason:
I met this friend (call her Anna) in college. Nice enough person, ended up dating my then-bf's roommate, so we all spent a lot of time together. She was one of those people who loved to be "quirky", and she had a tendency for the dramatic, but not to any extreme extent.
Anna would always complain about her parents, and say that XYZ thing that they did was all because of being "overbearing" older, adoptive parents. But the stuff she would say was stuff like, "they called me to check in, like they do EVERY weekend". Stuff my parents, who were neither older nor adoptive, did all the time. Or, like "I was home for Christmas and they wanted me to wake up to go out for breakfast with them!". Yeah, admittedly annoying when you're used to a college sleep schedule, but not unexpected.
We've drifted apart since college, but we're still FB friends, and Anne occasionally posts stuff like "FYI, I'm not in touch with my parents, so if they contact you asking if I'm OK, don't tell them anything." While it's true that you can never know what goes on in another family, given her flair for the dramatic, if there was something else going on like abuse, I have no doubt at all she would've shared it with me.
I don't think Anne herself has any severe personality issues; I think she's just convinced herself that her parents are bad parents and proceeds accordingly.
Geez, talk about wanting attention. Hey 740 FB friends, I don't talk to my parents, so if they reach out to you, tell them nothing.
Geez, talk about wanting attention. Hey 740 FB friends, I don't talk to my parents, so if they reach out to you, tell them nothing.
Yeah. In my non clinical opinion, it actually screams personality disorder.
I've always wondered what causes people to air all their dirty laundry on FB. Weird.
Geez, talk about wanting attention. Hey 740 FB friends, I don't talk to my parents, so if they reach out to you, tell them nothing.
Yeah. In my non clinical opinion, it actually screams personality disorder.
I've always wondered what causes people to air all their dirty laundry on FB. Weird.
You know, it's probably a bigger comment on the state of the world that what seems to me to be normal social media behavior also seems like a personality disorder.
It's only happened a handful of times; her posts outside of that are generally pretty benign. (Event photos, relationship appreciation, food, etc.)
re identifying the mean person:Sometimes, people just want out and want to take the high road. I have a good friend who was in a very long term relationship with a man who was divorced and had two kids. They lived together for awhile, they were probably together for a decade? She got used to being a family, having the boys on weekends with him, etc. So, he was kind of self-centered, childish guy. In the end, things didn't work out because he was kind of a jerk and she got sick of it. Also, comments like "well, you want to have kids, and I don't want any more. So if you leave me and have a kid, then we'll just end up back together. But I don't want to raise someone else's kid." (Which was all sorts of crazy.)
Growing up and into adulthood I have had significant problems with my aunt B, she can be quite nice and is materially generous and outgoing with many long term friends. My mom did not see issues I had with B, I tried verbalizing them and had assumed it was all obvious but talking with my mom now she did not see it (mom feels really bad about it all). My other aunt J did thankfully see the stuff with B.
Before about a year ago when all this came to a head and I formally cut B out of my life, an outsider looking into the situation might not have understood the history of why I would not choose to visit B. The outsider might have concluded I was just being lazy or uninterested in maintaining family connections. People are complex imperfect beings and they often misinterpret communications.
Sometimes, people just want out and want to take the high road. I have a good friend who was in a very long term relationship with a man who was divorced and had two kids. They lived together for awhile, they were probably together for a decade? She got used to being a family, having the boys on weekends with him, etc. So, he was kind of self-centered, childish guy. In the end, things didn't work out because he was kind of a jerk and she got sick of it. Also, comments like "well, you want to have kids, and I don't want any more. So if you leave me and have a kid, then we'll just end up back together. But I don't want to raise someone else's kid." (Which was all sorts of crazy.)
Well, they had a lot of mutual friends, and she took the high road when it ended, and refused to bad mouth him for all the things he'd done. So he tells all the friends that she's breaking up for no good reason. Thus, she's the bad guy. (Nevermind that "I don't want to be with him anymore" is a FINE reason.
I hope She found a better job and a better dude.Sometimes, people just want out and want to take the high road. I have a good friend who was in a very long term relationship with a man who was divorced and had two kids. They lived together for awhile, they were probably together for a decade? She got used to being a family, having the boys on weekends with him, etc. So, he was kind of self-centered, childish guy. In the end, things didn't work out because he was kind of a jerk and she got sick of it. Also, comments like "well, you want to have kids, and I don't want any more. So if you leave me and have a kid, then we'll just end up back together. But I don't want to raise someone else's kid." (Which was all sorts of crazy.)
Well, they had a lot of mutual friends, and she took the high road when it ended, and refused to bad mouth him for all the things he'd done. So he tells all the friends that she's breaking up for no good reason. Thus, she's the bad guy. (Nevermind that "I don't want to be with him anymore" is a FINE reason.
Wow, a close friend of mine went through almost this exact scenario! Fewer years, but very similar with helping raise his kids in part-time custody from a previous marriage, him being kind of a jerk to her, etc. I think he was one of those men who think showering a woman with money and gifts and luxury gets you out of having to be a decent person.
Difference being, they worked at the same company and he had been there longer and all their co-workers kept telling her she should give him another chance or go to couples counseling after she broke up with him. He got really creepy/weird about it. She ended up quitting her job to get away from it all.
Random musing: the first thing I wonder about in these estranged-for-no-obvious reason cases is abuse, typically, but not exclusively, sexual.
I'm not disagreeing, just clarifying. Earlier, the discussion was more on children who ghost their parents. I wasn't thinking about partner splits. Sorry your ex did such a jerky thing, but I suppose it might have been a small comfort, underscoring that you made the best decision for yourself.Random musing: the first thing I wonder about in these estranged-for-no-obvious reason cases is abuse, typically, but not exclusively, sexual.
Not necessarily. I took the high road when I left Ex, just told people we had grown apart and had different goals. Which was true. But underneath, it wasn't any one big thing, just a lot of little things that added up to "get out". The book "Too good to leave, too bad to stay" was a real eye-opener for me.
BTW, he didn't want anyone (well mainly his friends) to know I had left him, and when people asked where I was he told them a major lie. Which was an interesting character reveal.
Yeah, they had a LOT of mutual friends, and it got really awkward. All the friends telling her to give him another chance and all, when they weren't privy to the details.Sometimes, people just want out and want to take the high road. I have a good friend who was in a very long term relationship with a man who was divorced and had two kids. They lived together for awhile, they were probably together for a decade? She got used to being a family, having the boys on weekends with him, etc. So, he was kind of self-centered, childish guy. In the end, things didn't work out because he was kind of a jerk and she got sick of it. Also, comments like "well, you want to have kids, and I don't want any more. So if you leave me and have a kid, then we'll just end up back together. But I don't want to raise someone else's kid." (Which was all sorts of crazy.)
Well, they had a lot of mutual friends, and she took the high road when it ended, and refused to bad mouth him for all the things he'd done. So he tells all the friends that she's breaking up for no good reason. Thus, she's the bad guy. (Nevermind that "I don't want to be with him anymore" is a FINE reason.
Wow, a close friend of mine went through almost this exact scenario! Fewer years, but very similar with helping raise his kids in part-time custody from a previous marriage, him being kind of a jerk to her, etc. I think he was one of those men who think showering a woman with money and gifts and luxury gets you out of having to be a decent person.
Difference being, they worked at the same company and he had been there longer and all their co-workers kept telling her she should give him another chance or go to couples counseling after she broke up with him. He got really creepy/weird about it. She ended up quitting her job to get away from it all.
I'm not disagreeing, just clarifying. Earlier, the discussion was more on children who ghost their parents. I wasn't thinking about partner splits. Sorry your ex did such a jerky thing, but I suppose it might have been a small comfort, underscoring that you made the best decision for yourself.Random musing: the first thing I wonder about in these estranged-for-no-obvious reason cases is abuse, typically, but not exclusively, sexual.
Not necessarily. I took the high road when I left Ex, just told people we had grown apart and had different goals. Which was true. But underneath, it wasn't any one big thing, just a lot of little things that added up to "get out". The book "Too good to leave, too bad to stay" was a real eye-opener for me.
BTW, he didn't want anyone (well mainly his friends) to know I had left him, and when people asked where I was he told them a major lie. Which was an interesting character reveal.
We had sort of drifted away from parent/child. But it is amazing how much mental abuse can be hidden in a relationship (parent/child/couples) until a person gets away from the situation and things become clearer. I can certainly see how a child could assume that things in his/her family were normal until they got out into the world more and saw how other families work.
Reading Captain Awkward has been a real education for me.
Not really a drama...yet, but it does make one want to facepalm....
DH is the most successful of his siblings (He did marry a Mustachian after all:P). We are well on our way to FIRE, have a stable marriage, stable careers, intact family. His other two siblings live in housing owned by their parents. One has a mental illness and hasn’t worked in the past...15 years or so? Single parent. History of substance abuse.
DH recently found out that he is probably going to get very little or nothing from his parents because “he doesn’t need the money”. They will probably leave it all to the sibling with a severe mental illness. As a lump sum. To do with as they want.
When we first got married, DH told me his parents would split their assets equally. I told him not to count on it. They were going to think that he married into money and wouldn’t need their money anymore. My family is not really rich; we are finance people though and my parents have been quite wise with their money so we are comfortable.
DH and I aren’t surprised by this turn of events, as DH and I had already planned on investing his portion to support his sibling if it had been split three ways. Now we are rethinking our strategy as we will likely need to support the sibling after they blow through all the money. We will just have to build the cost of covering their basic living expenses into our FIRE budget. And be prepared that a portion of our time in FIRE will be helping them navigate the different government systems and programs.
We’re not upset or anything. It’s just interesting to read of smart people deciding NOT to leave everything to the child with mental illness who is unable of taking responsibility for managing their own life....and contrasting it to our current experience.
Not really a drama...yet, but it does make one want to facepalm....
DH is the most successful of his siblings (He did marry a Mustachian after all:P). We are well on our way to FIRE, have a stable marriage, stable careers, intact family. His other two siblings live in housing owned by their parents. One has a mental illness and hasn’t worked in the past...15 years or so? Single parent. History of substance abuse.
DH recently found out that he is probably going to get very little or nothing from his parents because “he doesn’t need the money”. They will probably leave it all to the sibling with a severe mental illness. As a lump sum. To do with as they want.
When we first got married, DH told me his parents would split their assets equally. I told him not to count on it. They were going to think that he married into money and wouldn’t need their money anymore. My family is not really rich; we are finance people though and my parents have been quite wise with their money so we are comfortable.
DH and I aren’t surprised by this turn of events, as DH and I had already planned on investing his portion to support his sibling if it had been split three ways. Now we are rethinking our strategy as we will likely need to support the sibling after they blow through all the money. We will just have to build the cost of covering their basic living expenses into our FIRE budget. And be prepared that a portion of our time in FIRE will be helping them navigate the different government systems and programs.
We’re not upset or anything. It’s just interesting to read of smart people deciding NOT to leave everything to the child with mental illness who is unable of taking responsibility for managing their own life....and contrasting it to our current experience.
Not really a drama...yet, but it does make one want to facepalm....
DH is the most successful of his siblings (He did marry a Mustachian after all:P). We are well on our way to FIRE, have a stable marriage, stable careers, intact family. His other two siblings live in housing owned by their parents. One has a mental illness and hasn’t worked in the past...15 years or so? Single parent. History of substance abuse.
DH recently found out that he is probably going to get very little or nothing from his parents because “he doesn’t need the money”. They will probably leave it all to the sibling with a severe mental illness. As a lump sum. To do with as they want.
When we first got married, DH told me his parents would split their assets equally. I told him not to count on it. They were going to think that he married into money and wouldn’t need their money anymore. My family is not really rich; we are finance people though and my parents have been quite wise with their money so we are comfortable.
DH and I aren’t surprised by this turn of events, as DH and I had already planned on investing his portion to support his sibling if it had been split three ways. Now we are rethinking our strategy as we will likely need to support the sibling after they blow through all the money. We will just have to build the cost of covering their basic living expenses into our FIRE budget. And be prepared that a portion of our time in FIRE will be helping them navigate the different government systems and programs.
We’re not upset or anything. It’s just interesting to read of smart people deciding NOT to leave everything to the child with mental illness who is unable of taking responsibility for managing their own life....and contrasting it to our current experience.
Maybe he can convince the parents to set up a special needs trust for the sibling instead. The sibling still gets the benefit of the money, but can't just blow through it all.
Not really a drama...yet, but it does make one want to facepalm....
DH is the most successful of his siblings (He did marry a Mustachian after all:P). We are well on our way to FIRE, have a stable marriage, stable careers, intact family. His other two siblings live in housing owned by their parents. One has a mental illness and hasn’t worked in the past...15 years or so? Single parent. History of substance abuse.
DH recently found out that he is probably going to get very little or nothing from his parents because “he doesn’t need the money”. They will probably leave it all to the sibling with a severe mental illness. As a lump sum. To do with as they want.
When we first got married, DH told me his parents would split their assets equally. I told him not to count on it. They were going to think that he married into money and wouldn’t need their money anymore. My family is not really rich; we are finance people though and my parents have been quite wise with their money so we are comfortable.
DH and I aren’t surprised by this turn of events, as DH and I had already planned on investing his portion to support his sibling if it had been split three ways. Now we are rethinking our strategy as we will likely need to support the sibling after they blow through all the money. We will just have to build the cost of covering their basic living expenses into our FIRE budget. And be prepared that a portion of our time in FIRE will be helping them navigate the different government systems and programs.
We’re not upset or anything. It’s just interesting to read of smart people deciding NOT to leave everything to the child with mental illness who is unable of taking responsibility for managing their own life....and contrasting it to our current experience.
Maybe he can convince the parents to set up a special needs trust for the sibling instead. The sibling still gets the benefit of the money, but can't just blow through it all.
Why yes, we did suggest that. Trusts are apparently “too good to be true” and you can’t trust that the person who administers the trust won’t steal all your money.
We also suggested purchasing an annuity with sibling as the beneficiary. But no, that is too good to be true! What company would keep paying until the beneficiary dies?! Apparently, annuities are scams.
Is there any particular reason that you have to support the sibling? I've made it perfectly clear to DH that I will not be supporting his brother. His parents still say that they will split everything equally, but I have my doubts that will ever happen. They've handed over money to BIL in large chunks more than once (the latest request was for $40k and they tried to sell a house that was supposed to be DH's to do so) and have been paying his rent for at least 5 years now. I suspect that there won't be much left to split and even if there was, it will go to BIL because "he needs it more." I get that the situation is different because BIL doesn't have a severe MI, but at some point you have to save yourself before you save others.
Not really a drama...yet, but it does make one want to facepalm.
(Snip)
Maybe he can convince the parents to set up a special needs trust for the sibling instead. The sibling still gets the benefit of the money, but can't just blow through it all.
Why yes, we did suggest that. Trusts are apparently “too good to be true” and you can’t trust that the person who administers the trust won’t steal all your money.
We also suggested purchasing an annuity with sibling as the beneficiary. But no, that is too good to be true! What company would keep paying until the beneficiary dies?! Apparently, annuities are scams.
Well, annuities are scams in that the fees are generally ridiculous. However, it can be useful if the beneficiary is not capable of handling the money. Would the parents trust y'all to administer the trust?
I'm guessing not, based on their decisions so far. It's terrible when those we love won't listen to sound advice.
Is there any particular reason that you have to support the sibling? I've made it perfectly clear to DH that I will not be supporting his brother. His parents still say that they will split everything equally, but I have my doubts that will ever happen. They've handed over money to BIL in large chunks more than once (the latest request was for $40k and they tried to sell a house that was supposed to be DH's to do so) and have been paying his rent for at least 5 years now. I suspect that there won't be much left to split and even if there was, it will go to BIL because "he needs it more." I get that the situation is different because BIL doesn't have a severe MI, but at some point you have to save yourself before you save others.
Because we’ve already saved ourselves. We have our own oxygen masks on. And we can’t just let the sibling end up homeless on the street with the kid (nephew)...and we can’t live with ourselves if they ended up in public housing in some unsafe area of town while we are comfortably ensconced in our luxury condo/townhouse while spending the summers at our cottage. Sibling is the type who will completely be taken advantage of by unsavory characters. It’s not their fault they grew up in an abusive home and have a family history of mental illness and drew the short end of the stick in terms of developing a mental illness and have parents whose financial abilities are questionable at best.
Obviously, we will not be buying them a penthouse suite overlooking the lake, but we will do our best to ensure that they are fed, clothed, and housed (in a Separate residence from us - that’s not really frugal, but it does set boundaries and allow me to maintain my sanity).
Not really a drama...yet, but it does make one want to facepalm.
(Snip)
Maybe he can convince the parents to set up a special needs trust for the sibling instead. The sibling still gets the benefit of the money, but can't just blow through it all.
Why yes, we did suggest that. Trusts are apparently “too good to be true” and you can’t trust that the person who administers the trust won’t steal all your money.
We also suggested purchasing an annuity with sibling as the beneficiary. But no, that is too good to be true! What company would keep paying until the beneficiary dies?! Apparently, annuities are scams.
Well, annuities are scams in that the fees are generally ridiculous. However, it can be useful if the beneficiary is not capable of handling the money. Would the parents trust y'all to administer the trust?
I'm guessing not, based on their decisions so far. It's terrible when those we love won't listen to sound advice.
In their minds, DH and I will make off with all their money. DH’s mom told him over 10 years ago that I was with him just so I could take all his money and then divorce him...because I’m a visible minority and not from the same culture as DH, so obviously I’m poor. She stopped saying that when I drove up in my parents’ Acura to visit once, because my own dinky Toyota was in the shop. But his parents still worry that I will steal all the money, because I’m not “family” so I can’t be trusted. And DH can’t be trusted because he listens to me.
ETA: I wouldn’t want the job to administer the trust even if it was offered to me. Me stand between sibling and THEIR money! Having me control how much of their money they can access each month? That’s a disaster waiting to happen. It’s one thing if it’s My money that I’m using to clothe and house them. It’s another thing when I’m “not allowing them to access what is rightfully theirs”.
My fathers mother who I never really knew much met a man later in life and got married in her 70's.
He had no relatives and had money, he died before her.
When she died me and my sister went to her funeral and my sister became friendly with a cousin there that we hadn't known up until then. The cousin was my fathers sisters daughter.
Shortly after that funeral I moved to a new country.
About 3 years later my sister told me that she had stayed in touch with this cousin and the cousin had said to her how generous it was of our grandmother to 'give us money before she died'?
My sister asked what money was that as she had not received any.
The cousin replied that grandmother had given money to her adult children and also given money to them to be passed onto their adult children.. her grandchildren (that be me;)
But my father thinking that we wouldn't know about this as we didn't know that side of the family 'kept' the money for himself.
Thereby cheating both his children and his own mothers wish on her deathbed.
Such a lovely man my father is!
It depends on what was written in her will. If it was just her verbal expectation, it won't be enforceable. If she gifted it before she died without written instructions, same deal.My fathers mother who I never really knew much met a man later in life and got married in her 70's.
He had no relatives and had money, he died before her.
When she died me and my sister went to her funeral and my sister became friendly with a cousin there that we hadn't known up until then. The cousin was my fathers sisters daughter.
Shortly after that funeral I moved to a new country.
About 3 years later my sister told me that she had stayed in touch with this cousin and the cousin had said to her how generous it was of our grandmother to 'give us money before she died'?
My sister asked what money was that as she had not received any.
The cousin replied that grandmother had given money to her adult children and also given money to them to be passed onto their adult children.. her grandchildren (that be me;)
But my father thinking that we wouldn't know about this as we didn't know that side of the family 'kept' the money for himself.
Thereby cheating both his children and his own mothers wish on her deathbed.
Such a lovely man my father is!
That's theft and fraud. Have him cough up the money or go to jail. Then have nothing else to do with him because if he'll steal from you like that, you don't need him in your life.
My fathers mother who I never really knew much met a man later in life and got married in her 70's.
He had no relatives and had money, he died before her.
When she died me and my sister went to her funeral and my sister became friendly with a cousin there that we hadn't known up until then. The cousin was my fathers sisters daughter.
Shortly after that funeral I moved to a new country.
About 3 years later my sister told me that she had stayed in touch with this cousin and the cousin had said to her how generous it was of our grandmother to 'give us money before she died'?
My sister asked what money was that as she had not received any.
The cousin replied that grandmother had given money to her adult children and also given money to them to be passed onto their adult children.. her grandchildren (that be me;)
But my father thinking that we wouldn't know about this as we didn't know that side of the family 'kept' the money for himself.
Thereby cheating both his children and his own mothers wish on her deathbed.
Such a lovely man my father is!
That's theft and fraud. Have him cough up the money or go to jail. Then have nothing else to do with him because if he'll steal from you like that, you don't need him in your life.
To be fair, my grandfather passed a few years ago and bequethed both me and my children. The will stated that it was to be released to them at their 16th birthday but my father and his siblings opted to pay out the sum so that the inheritance could be wrapped up.
That's theft and fraud. Have him cough up the money or go to jail. Then have nothing else to do with him because if he'll steal from you like that, you don't need him in your life.
In their minds, DH and I will make off with all their money. DH’s mom told him over 10 years ago that I was with him just so I could take all his money and then divorce him...because I’m a visible minority and not from the same culture as DH, so obviously I’m poor. She stopped saying that when I drove up in my parents’ Acura to visit once, because my own dinky Toyota was in the shop. But his parents still worry that I will steal all the money, because I’m not “family” so I can’t be trusted. And DH can’t be trusted because he listens to me.
In their minds, DH and I will make off with all their money. DH’s mom told him over 10 years ago that I was with him just so I could take all his money and then divorce him...because I’m a visible minority and not from the same culture as DH, so obviously I’m poor. She stopped saying that when I drove up in my parents’ Acura to visit once, because my own dinky Toyota was in the shop. But his parents still worry that I will steal all the money, because I’m not “family” so I can’t be trusted. And DH can’t be trusted because he listens to me.
Isn't it interesting how much difference a CAR/SUV/pickup makes to some people. You drive a gas sipper and everyone makes one set of assumptions. You buy or borrow a nicer vehicle and now everything is different... Throw in certain brands - even used - and people assume you've either won the lottery or up to your nose in debt. People can be so weird.
It's the cumulative effect of being bombarded with advertising.In their minds, DH and I will make off with all their money. DH’s mom told him over 10 years ago that I was with him just so I could take all his money and then divorce him...because I’m a visible minority and not from the same culture as DH, so obviously I’m poor. She stopped saying that when I drove up in my parents’ Acura to visit once, because my own dinky Toyota was in the shop. But his parents still worry that I will steal all the money, because I’m not “family” so I can’t be trusted. And DH can’t be trusted because he listens to me.
Isn't it interesting how much difference a CAR/SUV/pickup makes to some people. You drive a gas sipper and everyone makes one set of assumptions. You buy or borrow a nicer vehicle and now everything is different... Throw in certain brands - even used - and people assume you've either won the lottery or up to your nose in debt. People can be so weird.
My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
Hyundai i30 owner since 2015 here, 7 years old now. Great car for its pricetag and no major faults so far other than the ebrake sticking because it was parked too long for too often ;)My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
+1 - I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Hyundai either.
At first I was like "hey, that math doesn't add up." But then the mustachian side of my brain kicked in and realized you bought it used :PHyundai i30 owner since 2015 here, 7 years old now. Great car for its pricetag and no major faults so far other than the ebrake sticking because it was parked too long for too often ;)My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
+1 - I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Hyundai either.
Lol, me too!At first I was like "hey, that math doesn't add up." But then the mustachian side of my brain kicked in and realized you bought it used :PHyundai i30 owner since 2015 here, 7 years old now. Great car for its pricetag and no major faults so far other than the ebrake sticking because it was parked too long for too often ;)My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
+1 - I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Hyundai either.
Why is that, do you think?My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
Me too. I love the Hyundai G90, and it's been depreciating like a rock.
Lol, me too!At first I was like "hey, that math doesn't add up." But then the mustachian side of my brain kicked in and realized you bought it used :PHyundai i30 owner since 2015 here, 7 years old now. Great car for its pricetag and no major faults so far other than the ebrake sticking because it was parked too long for too often ;)My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
+1 - I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Hyundai either.
Not drama, but something new on my end. Was at my mother's and she was saying how my brother and I are so sentimental, but that my sister is not. She said it like 'isn't that funny?' because we're boys.that's sad that your mother thinks men can't be sentimental. I think my brother is more sentimental about things than I am. He got all of Dad's tools and jewelry, I'm to get mom's rings, but if really wanted them, I'd give them to him.....I'm very sentimental about memories, but not so much about the things the memories are attached to. I have more of my mother's "stuff" than I want, but only because it was important to her to give it too me. If my brother expressed an interest, I think I'd gladly give things to him. Just like I think he'd give me some of the stuff that was dad's within reason (he wears dad's ring daily, I'd never ask for that)
This came up because I was talking about the rocking chair I was sitting in, and how much I've always liked it - it's about 45 years old.
What I didn't say back to mom is "not only is she unsentimental, but also extremely blessed by having both sets of wedding bands, and other diamond jewelry." I know this because a daughter of mine is of age to marry, and I wanted to see if I could buy or have a set. Through a very long lunch, I found out that it was not available, but also not to be discussed.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victory-for-b-c-sisters-whose-parents-willed-them-tiny-share-of-9m-estate-1.5218792
Interesting case. 4 sisters get a more equitable distribution of their parents will. Apparently BC is unusual to even allow " ... judges wide leeway to make drastic changes to a will to make sure there's a "just and equitable" distribution to someone's surviving spouse and children."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victory-for-b-c-sisters-whose-parents-willed-them-tiny-share-of-9m-estate-1.5218792
Interesting case. 4 sisters get a more equitable distribution of their parents will. Apparently BC is unusual to even allow " ... judges wide leeway to make drastic changes to a will to make sure there's a "just and equitable" distribution to someone's surviving spouse and children."
We have a mentally handicapped daughter (Down syndrome) who can't provide for herself thru no fault of her own. We also have a son who is perfectly capable of taking care of himself and his family.
We made it very clear ages ago that our priority #1 was to make sure our daughter would be well provided for. He's a good son and brother and that makes perfect sense to him.
It's really only been the last 5 years that we realized that there is a good chance there will be enough for her and a very sizeable portion left over for him. We're in the process of setting up our wills. She'll get a set dollar amount or 50%, whichever is greater. He'll get the rest. If our portfolio grew nicely and medical bills didn't eat it up, that will be a lot of money. If not, he might get nothing. Her portion will go into a trust. She won't own the trust, she'll own a life interest in the income it provides. When she dies the money will revert to our son or his descendants.
I think the reason for the unequal distribution is very different than just taking care of people because they are too damn lazy to do so for themselves, or too damn spoiled to live within their means.
It just doesn't make a lot of sense to reinforce failure instead of success. But, then again, doing that for many years is how you get overaged children in the first place, I guess.
My fathers mother who I never really knew much met a man later in life and got married in her 70's.
He had no relatives and had money, he died before her.
When she died me and my sister went to her funeral and my sister became friendly with a cousin there that we hadn't known up until then. The cousin was my fathers sisters daughter.
Shortly after that funeral I moved to a new country.
About 3 years later my sister told me that she had stayed in touch with this cousin and the cousin had said to her how generous it was of our grandmother to 'give us money before she died'?
My sister asked what money was that as she had not received any.
The cousin replied that grandmother had given money to her adult children and also given money to them to be passed onto their adult children.. her grandchildren (that be me;)
But my father thinking that we wouldn't know about this as we didn't know that side of the family 'kept' the money for himself.
Thereby cheating both his children and his own mothers wish on her deathbed.
Such a lovely man my father is!
That's theft and fraud. Have him cough up the money or go to jail. Then have nothing else to do with him because if he'll steal from you like that, you don't need him in your life.
It was about 27 years ago.
Yeah he's nuts! I've got used to it over the years. And can trust him about as far as I can throw him, I think he's got some mental problems so I just learned to live with it.
He's done all kinds of wacky things over the years, it's like having a kind of abusive parent.... it's not sexual abuse, or particularly physical... it's more like he'd steal your inheritance, steal your girlfriend or wife, steal your child's affections by sh2t disturbing and gossiping behind your back. Make your achievements look small and insignificant, and be quietly happy when you fail.
Not drama, but something new on my end. Was at my mother's and she was saying how my brother and I are so sentimental, but that my sister is not. She said it like 'isn't that funny?' because we're boys.that's sad that your mother thinks men can't be sentimental. I think my brother is more sentimental about things than I am. He got all of Dad's tools and jewelry, I'm to get mom's rings, but if really wanted them, I'd give them to him.....I'm very sentimental about memories, but not so much about the things the memories are attached to. I have more of my mother's "stuff" than I want, but only because it was important to her to give it too me. If my brother expressed an interest, I think I'd gladly give things to him. Just like I think he'd give me some of the stuff that was dad's within reason (he wears dad's ring daily, I'd never ask for that)
This came up because I was talking about the rocking chair I was sitting in, and how much I've always liked it - it's about 45 years old.
What I didn't say back to mom is "not only is she unsentimental, but also extremely blessed by having both sets of wedding bands, and other diamond jewelry." I know this because a daughter of mine is of age to marry, and I wanted to see if I could buy or have a set. Through a very long lunch, I found out that it was not available, but also not to be discussed.
But I know I'm fortunate that we won't have drama. The stories I hear on this thread sadden me about the greed of some folk's relatives.
I was chewing my wife's ear yesterday about chipping in to pay for some expenses for our kids, when we don't know whether her brother is paying for the same for his kids (my MiL is taking them all to the same activities).
Based on what I'm reading here, I really ought to just shut up. $30-$60 of difference is not worth complaining.
Sometimes I wonder if my mom hates me, but I don't think that's the case. She just favors my sister because she's the only girl, and my sister is shameless about getting things, like wedding band sets and other jewelry. If cash was up for grabs, she'd be cool with that, too, but I don't foresee her trying to get a tea kettle or the Christmas decorations from our childhood.
My grandmother is now 90 and she sold her home. Since she doesn't need the money it was arranged through her CPA to just split the dough between her 2 daughters, who she lives with.Sounds like Granny made a smart move there.
I'm so happy that this is happening because both women are recent widows and could make wonderful use of the money while taking care of grandma.
COMING DRAMA: She will die, or so I've heard, and when she does there will be a little bit more money, I hope, for her daughters, but in the group is a ne'er do well cousin who smokes a lot of drugs and doesn't have much of a life. When her father died, she asked if sh could "have dad's social security." I imagine she anticipates granny, who retired at 55, must have some cash, but she doesn't. It was already distributed.
so your grandmother lives with your mother and your aunt? Did I get the family order correct? Won't your cousin just pester her mother (your aunt), and potentially decide to move-in once granny is gone (cuz, hey, there will be a room available)? I see the potential for alot of drama
COMING DRAMA: She will die, or so I've heard, and when she does there will be a little bit more money, I hope, for her daughters, but in the group is a ne'er do well cousin who smokes a lot of drugs and doesn't have much of a life. When her father died, she asked if sh could "have dad's social security." I imagine she anticipates granny, who retired at 55, must have some cash, but she doesn't. It was already distributed.
so your grandmother lives with your mother and your aunt? Did I get the family order correct? Won't your cousin just pester her mother (your aunt), and potentially decide to move-in once granny is gone (cuz, hey, there will be a room available)? I see the potential for alot of drama
COMING DRAMA: She will die, or so I've heard, and when she does there will be a little bit more money, I hope, for her daughters, but in the group is a ne'er do well cousin who smokes a lot of drugs and doesn't have much of a life. When her father died, she asked if sh could "have dad's social security." I imagine she anticipates granny, who retired at 55, must have some cash, but she doesn't. It was already distributed.
...........the mother change[d] her will in favour of his sibling so no money ever ends up in the claws of that harlot.....
....................the woman apparantly has a job and owns her own home too..........
Hah....21 years ago, when I first started dating my husband, when his mother met me, she told him I looked like a gold digger.....to this day, I don't know where this gold is that she was worried about.....he came into the marriage with his half of the house down payment and nothing else and I've always made a little more than double his salary.....BUT he was smart enough to let me manage the money....which is the reason he gets to retire next year, which is much better than his plan of 'work until I die'.....she came to love me.....I had a freezer and got him packing his lunch................the mother change[d] her will in favour of his sibling so no money ever ends up in the claws of that harlot.....
....................the woman apparantly has a job and owns her own home too..........
Classic harlot behavior; buying a home and establishing a career to trick everyone. Then, when they least expect it, she robs her not-rich, five-on-a-ten-point-scale boyfriend by loving him forever and having him chip in for half the stuff.
Happens every day.
Hah....21 years ago, when I first started dating my husband, when his mother met me, she told him I looked like a gold digger.....to this day, I don't know where this gold is that she was worried about.....he came into the marriage with his half of the house down payment and nothing else and I've always made a little more than double his salary.....BUT he was smart enough to let me manage the money....which is the reason he gets to retire next year, which is much better than his plan of 'work until I die'.....she came to love me.....I had a freezer and got him packing his lunch................the mother change[d] her will in favour of his sibling so no money ever ends up in the claws of that harlot.....
....................the woman apparantly has a job and owns her own home too..........
Classic harlot behavior; buying a home and establishing a career to trick everyone. Then, when they least expect it, she robs her not-rich, five-on-a-ten-point-scale boyfriend by loving him forever and having him chip in for half the stuff.
Happens every day.
To be fair, gold digging is hard work with lots of risk. /jkHah....21 years ago, when I first started dating my husband, when his mother met me, she told him I looked like a gold digger.....to this day, I don't know where this gold is that she was worried about.....he came into the marriage with his half of the house down payment and nothing else and I've always made a little more than double his salary.....BUT he was smart enough to let me manage the money....which is the reason he gets to retire next year, which is much better than his plan of 'work until I die'.....she came to love me.....I had a freezer and got him packing his lunch................the mother change[d] her will in favour of his sibling so no money ever ends up in the claws of that harlot.....
....................the woman apparantly has a job and owns her own home too..........
Classic harlot behavior; buying a home and establishing a career to trick everyone. Then, when they least expect it, she robs her not-rich, five-on-a-ten-point-scale boyfriend by loving him forever and having him chip in for half the stuff.
Happens every day.
"looks like a gold digger"? Geez, that's terrible.
Your MIL must have been so insecure. Glad you get along.
Hah....21 years ago, when I first started dating my husband, when his mother met me, she told him I looked like a gold digger.....to this day, I don't know where this gold is that she was worried about.....he came into the marriage with his half of the house down payment and nothing else and I've always made a little more than double his salary.....BUT he was smart enough to let me manage the money....which is the reason he gets to retire next year, which is much better than his plan of 'work until I die'.....she came to love me.....I had a freezer and got him packing his lunch................the mother change[d] her will in favour of his sibling so no money ever ends up in the claws of that harlot.....
....................the woman apparantly has a job and owns her own home too..........
Classic harlot behavior; buying a home and establishing a career to trick everyone. Then, when they least expect it, she robs her not-rich, five-on-a-ten-point-scale boyfriend by loving him forever and having him chip in for half the stuff.
Happens every day.
Hah....21 years ago, when I first started dating my husband, when his mother met me, she told him I looked like a gold digger.....to this day, I don't know where this gold is that she was worried about.....he came into the marriage with his half of the house down payment and nothing else and I've always made a little more than double his salary.....BUT he was smart enough to let me manage the money....which is the reason he gets to retire next year, which is much better than his plan of 'work until I die'.....she came to love me.....I had a freezer and got him packing his lunch.....
I see this with my sister-in-law.
Whenever our families are all together, she insists that my family is late for everything.
It took me a couple of visits to realize that this is because HER husband is late for everything.
Dad's sister told my Mum that ..........she is only the daughter-in-law and and is obviously after Nan's money...
.................All four of her children are on disability.........
Future Drama:
Childless Uncle-great investor, not spender, stealth wealth extreme.
Several Siblings ( some dead)
~20 siblings kids (cousins to each other) DW among them. DW is descended from dead Sibling.
Current expectations are "$1M each at the cousin level"
While my estimation, based on conversations with Childless Uncle is at least $5-10M, I very much doubt that things will go smoothly on his passing, no matter what the amount.
DW doubts that there is a will in place. Eeek!
Well at least we are chubby, maybe Fat-FIRE, so we are not directly affected, but we might have to be involved in the drama.
DW and I only like drama at the remove of TV or movies.
Predictions?
Watch this space for updates.
Haven't been here for a bit, but my dad passed away last year. He had a book about to be published and my sister contacted the publisher. There was a conversation between her and the publisher about donating the royalties to a charity instead of just getting checks. That's fine. But then my sister, a cat hoarder, approached me to bounce this idea off me: "What if I get my cats designated as a nonprofit and then we can use the book proceeds to pay for their food?"This article might help her figure out how to do it on her own. Follow it to the end (the article, not the thread). I promise it's relevant.
Uh, no. How about we don't get your freaking cats designated as a charity so you can pocket dad's residual paychecks to feed your own pets? Especially since mom's still alive, ffs.
Haven't been here for a bit, but my dad passed away last year. He had a book about to be published and my sister contacted the publisher. There was a conversation between her and the publisher about donating the royalties to a charity instead of just getting checks. That's fine. But then my sister, a cat hoarder, approached me to bounce this idea off me: "What if I get my cats designated as a nonprofit and then we can use the book proceeds to pay for their food?"
Uh, no. How about we don't get your freaking cats designated as a charity so you can pocket dad's residual paychecks to feed your own pets? Especially since mom's still alive, ffs.
Future Drama:
Childless Uncle-great investor, not spender, stealth wealth extreme.
Several Siblings ( some dead)
~20 siblings kids (cousins to each other) DW among them. DW is descended from dead Sibling.
Current expectations are "$1M each at the cousin level"
While my estimation, based on conversations with Childless Uncle is at least $5-10M, I very much doubt that things will go smoothly on his passing, no matter what the amount.
DW doubts that there is a will in place. Eeek!
Well at least we are chubby, maybe Fat-FIRE, so we are not directly affected, but we might have to be involved in the drama.
DW and I only like drama at the remove of TV or movies.
Predictions?
Watch this space for updates.
Because you don't need the money, y'all may be in a good position to talk with this uncle about his will. You can just outline your concerns about not wanting a huge family drama and recommend that he go to an attorney and have a good, detailed will drawn up. As long as it comes from a position of love and concern, most people will be receptive to advice.
A friend's dad died earlier this year. I didn't handle the estate so I don't know exactly what assets he had, but I had some idea. He didn't have a huge estate, but it was enough to allow each of his three kids to walk away with somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. But my friend, a grown woman with two children, is not good with money. In fact, during her marriage and after her divorce, her dad regularly gave her money or just paid her bills. Now my friend was completely devastated by her dad's death, but she is saying things to mutual friends like, "well, at least now I don't have to work." WTF? She didn't inherit enough to be FI. Not the way she spends money. I just got some photos of her (multiple) international summer travels with her kids.
I guess it's not really drama but it's like watching a train heading for a wreck.
This article might help her figure out how to do it on her own. Follow it to the end (the article, not the thread). I promise it's relevant.I'm sure my sister would love to have a cat cafe, but I've given up on talking to her about money. Even as she was going through a bankruptcy, I couldn't convince her to just do something as simple as pack a lunch for work. "But I neeeeed to leave to go to a restaurant every day, if I eat at my desk people will keep stopping by asking me to do work related stuff and I really need the break!"
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-web/japanese-woman-retires-at-34-after-living-on-$2-a-day-for-16-years/msg2441886/#msg2441886
A couple of years ago, we actually sifted through thousands of charitable asks for an elderly friend who was inundated. So many times, I wanted to scream at people, "What's wrong with working to achieve your dream instead of mooching off of others?!?!"
A friend's dad died earlier this year. I didn't handle the estate so I don't know exactly what assets he had, but I had some idea. He didn't have a huge estate, but it was enough to allow each of his three kids to walk away with somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. But my friend, a grown woman with two children, is not good with money. In fact, during her marriage and after her divorce, her dad regularly gave her money or just paid her bills. Now my friend was completely devastated by her dad's death, but she is saying things to mutual friends like, "well, at least now I don't have to work." WTF? She didn't inherit enough to be FI. Not the way she spends money. I just got some photos of her (multiple) international summer travels with her kids.
I guess it's not really drama but it's like watching a train heading for a wreck.
Real friends don't let their friends do something that stupid without giving them a heart-to-heart talk first.
Your friend will probably do the stupid thing anyway, but (a) at least you tried and (b) they'll be less likely to hit you up for sympathy or money when the train wreck happens. Either way, it's a win.
Future Drama:
Childless Uncle-great investor, not spender, stealth wealth extreme.
Several Siblings ( some dead)
~20 siblings kids (cousins to each other) DW among them. DW is descended from dead Sibling.
Current expectations are "$1M each at the cousin level"
While my estimation, based on conversations with Childless Uncle is at least $5-10M, I very much doubt that things will go smoothly on his passing, no matter what the amount.
DW doubts that there is a will in place. Eeek!
Well at least we are chubby, maybe Fat-FIRE, so we are not directly affected, but we might have to be involved in the drama.
DW and I only like drama at the remove of TV or movies.
Predictions?
Watch this space for updates.
I see this with my sister-in-law.
Whenever our families are all together, she insists that my family is late for everything.
It took me a couple of visits to realize that this is because HER husband is late for everything.
Put on a good Gary Cooper drawl, "Well, color me simple, sis, we were here before the scheduled time, and it's YOUR husband who is late." Smile. Pause. "As always. So why would you claim that WE are late?"
I decided some years ago that I was just plain done with putting up with passive aggressive bullshit. I have very little tolerance for it. So I just serve them up a hearty verbal bowl of go fuck yourself soup and present it with a flourish. Very few try that shit a fourth time.
I said fourth time because I usually give the first two times a pass, in case they were having a bad day or something. After that, they're fair game.
(Unless I'm convinced based on prior observation or accounts of how the person acts that they're being shitty on purpose. Then I don't wait for a second time.)
Ahhh, good family fun. We get guilted that we aren't making enough sibling relationship effort and we're late to events. Never mind we're always the ones driving long distances and nobody makes the efforts to visit the family like we do. Road only goes one way too so visits to our house are rare. Like once or twice every twenty years for my sibling.
When I was single, I was the one who made the trips. When I was working, I used my plentiful windshield time to initiate the phone calls. Now that I'm married and busy...crickets. unless, of course, I pick up the phone or they need a place to stay on the way to or from somewhere else.Ahhh, good family fun. We get guilted that we aren't making enough sibling relationship effort and we're late to events. Never mind we're always the ones driving long distances and nobody makes the efforts to visit the family like we do. Road only goes one way too so visits to our house are rare. Like once or twice every twenty years for my sibling.
Yep, can totally relate to this with DH's family. DH hears how he and his sister aren't close, SIL has never been in our home and has refused all invitations from us, but yet DH is the one not making the effort. We were the ones driving the distance to the family events. DH's parents and SIL live a few miles from each other, events were usually at SIL's or MIL/FIL home because that was "convenient" for SIL, it was up to us to make the drive every time. Eventually SIL/MIL/FIL dumped the responsibility for family events on our niece, who incidentally lives closer to us, but we aren't invited because we are the ones who "don't make the effort" in the convoluted family narrative.
oh boyA friend's dad died earlier this year. I didn't handle the estate so I don't know exactly what assets he had, but I had some idea. He didn't have a huge estate, but it was enough to allow each of his three kids to walk away with somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. But my friend, a grown woman with two children, is not good with money. In fact, during her marriage and after her divorce, her dad regularly gave her money or just paid her bills. Now my friend was completely devastated by her dad's death, but she is saying things to mutual friends like, "well, at least now I don't have to work." WTF? She didn't inherit enough to be FI. Not the way she spends money. I just got some photos of her (multiple) international summer travels with her kids.
I guess it's not really drama but it's like watching a train heading for a wreck.
Real friends don't let their friends do something that stupid without giving them a heart-to-heart talk first.
Your friend will probably do the stupid thing anyway, but (a) at least you tried and (b) they'll be less likely to hit you up for sympathy or money when the train wreck happens. Either way, it's a win.
We used to be closer, but we've drifted apart a bit. I used to try to show her how to do things cheaper, like baking your own bread, for example, which she took a shine to. Then the next time I saw her she was doing some special diet that cost $$$ per week. I can still be friendly with her but it's tough to witness sometimes.
You can expect the friendship to continue to get more distant. Some people don't want to be helped in any useful way.
Sad story: shortly after the DH and I started dating, a good (older) friend of the DH married his girlfriend (hereafter wife #4), in his words, so she would be allowed into the recovery room after an upcoming medical procedure. Procedure was unsuccessful and friend was given weeks to live. We helped the friend, wife #4 and wife #4's teenage kid from a previous marriage downsize into the friend's mother's basement. We helped wife #4 and friend's mother with in-home patient care. We were there for the friend's passing and attended the deeply uncomfortable funeral attended by all four wives. We were also there when wife #4 realized she was going to get nothing - Wife #1 got the military pension (married during military service), wife #2 got the social security (married longest), wife #3 got the bank accounts (will not changed after wife #4's very recent - as in weeks old - marriage to friend). There was nothing left other than the belongings we'd helped them move into the basement.
DH and I spent the next year trying to help wife #4 get back on her feet, but she wasn't interested in going back to work or making any changes to her spending (formerly financed by friend). Eventually we helped pack up wife #4's belongings when friend's mother kicked wife #4 out of the basement (for demanding in advance what she expected to get when friend's exceptionally elderly mother died). The last thing wife #4 said to us as she pulled away in the rental truck we loaded full with everything we'd carried back up out of the basement (she left the kid with the kid's dad) was "I'm going to move in with my mother and brother. They will take care of me." We reached out several times after that to check on wife #4, but when she realized we weren't going to provide any more support (we were't going to fly down just to provide free labor and we weren't sending money) she ghosted us.
DH and I still hear from wives #1 & #3 occasionally.
When I was single, I was the one who made the trips. When I was working, I used my plentiful windshield time to initiate the phone calls. Now that I'm married and busy...crickets. unless, of course, I pick up the phone or they need a place to stay on the way to or from somewhere else.Ahhh, good family fun. We get guilted that we aren't making enough sibling relationship effort and we're late to events. Never mind we're always the ones driving long distances and nobody makes the efforts to visit the family like we do. Road only goes one way too so visits to our house are rare. Like once or twice every twenty years for my sibling.
Yep, can totally relate to this with DH's family. DH hears how he and his sister aren't close, SIL has never been in our home and has refused all invitations from us, but yet DH is the one not making the effort. We were the ones driving the distance to the family events. DH's parents and SIL live a few miles from each other, events were usually at SIL's or MIL/FIL home because that was "convenient" for SIL, it was up to us to make the drive every time. Eventually SIL/MIL/FIL dumped the responsibility for family events on our niece, who incidentally lives closer to us, but we aren't invited because we are the ones who "don't make the effort" in the convoluted family narrative.
When I was single, I was the one who made the trips. When I was working, I used my plentiful windshield time to initiate the phone calls. Now that I'm married and busy...crickets. unless, of course, I pick up the phone or they need a place to stay on the way to or from somewhere else.Ahhh, good family fun. We get guilted that we aren't making enough sibling relationship effort and we're late to events. Never mind we're always the ones driving long distances and nobody makes the efforts to visit the family like we do. Road only goes one way too so visits to our house are rare. Like once or twice every twenty years for my sibling.
Yep, can totally relate to this with DH's family. DH hears how he and his sister aren't close, SIL has never been in our home and has refused all invitations from us, but yet DH is the one not making the effort. We were the ones driving the distance to the family events. DH's parents and SIL live a few miles from each other, events were usually at SIL's or MIL/FIL home because that was "convenient" for SIL, it was up to us to make the drive every time. Eventually SIL/MIL/FIL dumped the responsibility for family events on our niece, who incidentally lives closer to us, but we aren't invited because we are the ones who "don't make the effort" in the convoluted family narrative.
I have a story to share about my dad's estate. It's too long, but I don't know what to delete.
I have a story to share about my dad's estate. It's too long, but I don't know what to delete.
This simply has to be THE MOST EPIC FIRST POST ever on the MMM forum. :)
Thank you for not deleting a single word of this amazing story!
Wow, an active thread that goes on for 3 years... I'm only on page 12. Leave it to MMM to start this!I'm sorry for your lose....and the horror you had to go through with your sister.....
I have a story to share about my dad's estate. It's too long, but I don't know what to delete. Dad died suddenly in 2015 at the age of 70, conveniently while I was on a business trip and while my sister (only sibling) still was ensconced in his house - thanks dad!!! Mom and dad were divorced for many years, and thankfully had moved past the spitting venom phase into over a decade of being friends and sometime companions, but with separate lives otherwise (go parents!! :).
.......
hahahahaha - Sister miraculously resumed contact with mom. Now she is ensconced in mom's house for probably 12 months out of the last 18, off and on, supposedly looking for work. She's had work now for 6 weeks now. Mom's will is safely in the safety deposit box, which my name is on. It's 50/50 with a few tweaks to try to ensure my sister isn't homeless in her old age. Sad. Get a good lawyer to do your will. I told my mom, that, if she has ANY love for me, please do not die while sister is in her house. Mom laughed. ;-)
I have a story to share about my dad's estate. It's too long, but I don't know what to delete.
This simply has to be THE MOST EPIC FIRST POST ever on the MMM forum. :)
Thank you for not deleting a single word of this amazing story!
Bless your heart, no one should have to put up with relatives like that.
If you really want your mom to do you a favor, have her hire an executor. It will cost a couple percent and I'm thinking it would be well worth it. (Well, maybe from your point of view, but from the point of the person being paid to deal with your sister, it might not be!!) (If you're in NC I'll be glad to recommend someone.)
After reading this last story, it has motivated me to setup a trust for my kids :)
After reading this last story, it has motivated me to setup a trust for my kids :)
We set up things so one grandchild, who might or might not settle down, would have a hired trustee instead of a family member to deal with. If things go bad there's no reason to cause family who have their act together to deal with family who don't.
My father died recently and I just got a letter from the lawyer with a copy of his will.
Now let me just say up front that he was a narcissistic asshole, and I didn't want a penny from his estate. I would have either donated it or set it aside for my baby niece, who will never know him and for whom it wouldn't have been...tainted...money. Turns out I didn't get anything, and I'm relieved by that; I'd rather have no further part in this. (I don't think the way he distributed his estate to others is particularly fair or kind, but it is officially Not My Problem and I'm not going to worry about it. Fortunately I'm not the executor.)
He wasn't physically abusive, but my reaction to hearing about his death was an overwhelming "well, good riddance." I'm not sad, just a little wistful for what might have been, if he'd chosen to be a better person.
I keep remembering this quote from one of my favourite writers, Lois McMaster Bujold..."When I go down into the ground at last, as God is my judge, I pray my best-beloved may have better to say of me than 'He didn't hit me.'"
I hope that for myself, too.
...
This is all more sad than drama-ridden, but who knows, drama could be forthcoming? He won't have left a huge estate by Mustachian standards, but I suppose there is no amount too small to fight over, hah. (I think a handful of people are getting $10-30K each.)
Even if you didn't want the money man that is harsh not giving any money to your own child.
A number of years later she ended up in the hospital/nursing home, and was diagnosed with throat cancer from a biopsy. Unfortunately the biopsy made it so she couldn't drink normally so she needed a feeding tube. My uncle went there and terrorized the nurses saying he had power of attorney and had them remove the feeding tube. My uncle and my mother visited, found out what happened, the medical staff said they couldn't do anything. Uncle and mother were in the process of having a lawyer overturn this, when she died about a week after the event, basically from being withheld food/water. As you can imagine it was tremendously distressing to my mom, who was not sure of her mother's actual wishes as she couldn't speak at the time.
When the will was read, it gave everything to the uncle (though there were 3 children), with the only stipulation being that he would pay for the burial/funeral. Even that he refused saying he was just going to cremate her and throw the ashes in the Chicago River (she was Catholic and wanted to be buried in the churchyard in the town where the rest of her family was buried). So my mother and uncle took over the funeral planning. My mother, sister and brother traveled up to Wisconsin for the funeral, and they said it was a good, healing time, talking with her sisters that were still alive, who shared many childhood and other stories of her. But- Uncle crashed the funeral. He showed up uninvited, drunk, making inappropriate remarks. Unfortunately most of the people were elderly folk who were too intimidated to confront him, but my brother steered him a couple times out of venues, usually to a local bar to get him out of the way.
My mother wanted only a few things from the house, including a portrait of my grandmother that my grandfather painted, some photos, and grandmother's costume jewelry. Uncle had similar small requests. He agreed, but then one Monday called them both bragging, ha! I went and had an estate sale yesterday and it's all gone! My mother did end up salvaging some photos as well as the boxes of costume jewelry that he had rummaged through and then thrown into a big pile, breaking
most of it. We never did find out what happened to the portrait of grandmother.
He cleared about 90K, cashed it out and moved up to wisconsin, living in or near an Indian reservation, drinking and gambling the money away. More crazy stories... He ended up going through the money and was living for free in another elderly relative's house, until he was finally kicked out. Lived with the other uncle for awhile, till he burned that bridge as well. Job to job (security guard, etc). I think at this point due to ill health is now on disability. My mother still gets long letters from him, basically asking for help we begged her PLEASE do not give him any money and so far I think she has held the line.
After reading this last story, it has motivated me to setup a trust for my kids :)
We set up things so one grandchild, who might or might not settle down, would have a hired trustee instead of a family member to deal with. If things go bad there's no reason to cause family who have their act together to deal with family who don't.
Above, both are gifts to your children IMHO. If I remember correctly, my mom’s attorney said to her...so, you want to control the money from beyond the grave... and laughed. (She would not do a trust.) My husband thinks I should just bow out now and tell my mom I don’t want to be her executor. I already tried this once, and she flipped out because then who would do it?!?! I felt awful, so it stands now. :) Again, hopefully she’s with us for many more years - indeed, she seems to have gotten a second wind lately, which is awesome.
On the other side of the family, my in-laws have a different drama coming (DH and I feel so, at least). Mom and dad are divorced, and it is not amicable. Supposedly during the divorce, hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets disappeared - home equity and cash. Fast forward to now...dad denies any existence of such a thing. Mom had account statements up to a point, and then it all “vanished”. Is this any of our business? No, of course not. Except that mom has zero savings and will be left on (his) social security when he dies, since her share of his various pensions will die with him.
So, where is the drama, you ask? If we’re lucky, maybe there will be none. Do you feel lucky? We do not. Dad traveled extensively for his long and lucrative career. Much of that time is in question, since it was later found that the work-related travel had ended weeks prior to his return sometimes. DH is half convinced that there is a second family out there somewhere, based on events from when he was a kid.
Dad updated his will and tells his 3 sons that they’ll all share equally. The oldest will be the executor, and each will receive 1/3. I guess the step-daughter is left out or mostly so. He also says nebulously that there should be “enough to take care of mom”. On the surface that’s very kind, since it’s giving them the thumbs up for spending it on their mother. Under the surface, is... is this the “missing money”? Should it really all be hers? Should she sue the estate if it’s offshore accounts or highly doubtful that it was post-divorce earnings... I doubt she would, but *I* probably would in her shoes! There also was a defaulted loan to her family....should she put that in as a creditor to be paid before assets are released to the beneficiaries? Dad also is very into his own extended family, so we’ll be surprised if he didn’t leave something to his brother and younger neice(s).
The other foreshadowing I can share with you is: dad’s sister passed away not too long ago. She was the nicest, coolest lady. Apparently she told her daughter (DH’s cousin, if your trying to follow along) that I might need emotional support/a friendly ear when the dad dies. The lady said that their family has no secrets (husband already had died young), But for this man, there are “skeletons” [in the closet]. The skeletons will come out when he dies. Fantastic.
The good thing I’ll say is that the dad's executor does know where the will is and where accounts are, at least in some general sense. He lives out of state, and I don’t envy him for the burden/responsibility. I am thankful that MY DH isn’t going to have to do it...especially since all the local family has a history of raiding homes of the recently deceased to take whatever they want. Sigh. It’s all just stuff anyway, right?? It’s funny, when somebody near to you dies, you’d think we could just be sad and miss them. Instead, it becomes a dramafest.
Cheers.
You know, this reminds me of a guideline I use that really eliminates drama from my life. It helps me avoid being put exactly where you are: holding damaging but uncertain information about personal relationships.
I don't care for gossip, especially when it damages relationships that I have (without knowing the reality of what's going on). I refuse to be a part of it, either. Gossip is something I am going to be out in front of, stopping, rather than sitting to wait on it to corrode various relationships.
So, to rid myself of gossip entirely, I engage in a simple practice: I give the person who told me the gossip (in this case, about the "skeletons") 24 hours to tell the person the gossip is about, and make amends. Because after that, I'm going to do so.
(In your situation, I'd talk to your father and to the person who shared that tidbit with you...but probably go to the aunt/whoever shared it with that person before your father, then to your father soon after.)
It's gossip, it's not OK, it hurts people, and so the people gossiping need to go make it right ASAP. If other people won't stop it, I will.
(In this case, I would do the same as to the person who told it to that person, i.e., the person who got the gossip going, since you know who it is supposed to be.)
Then, after 24 hours, I make good on my word. I go have a conversation with whoever I said I would about whatever I was told. And that usually gets to the bottom of things. It certainly clears things up, and prevents others from corroding relationships.
(I don't think my mother took me seriously the first time, but since then, it hasn't been a problem anymore.)
I'd go have a visit with the person talking about the skeletons and same routine. You'll either remedy some relationships or learn all about the skeletons now...or both.
You'll definitely accomplish one thing: nobody will be telling you things that lead you to fret/worry about, or that you would feel guilty about bringing up. That will be over.
It's one good path to a drama-free life. Or at least gossip-free. Life is too short for that nonsense.
This is relatively mild for this thread and I'm leaving out decades of spicier Shakespearean-level family drama but here goes:
Parents disinherit their children for supposedly betraying them.
The relationship between parents and those children ebbs and flows over the years. The children have kids of their own. Parents eventually creates an estate plan that leaves their money to their grandchildren (kids of the disinherited) in a trust. The grandkids would all get equal portions.
However, upon learning this, disinherited kid #1 complains that it's "not fair" because other siblings have numerically more children and thus the rightful "share" of disinherited #1 is being reduced.
The complaining resulted in a further revision of the estate plan to restore the original position of the complainer.
The greed is fairly grotesque and the whole situation is a shabby sad ugly parody of what a family should be like and feel like.
A number of years later she ended up in the hospital/nursing home, and was diagnosed with throat cancer from a biopsy. Unfortunately the biopsy made it so she couldn't drink normally so she needed a feeding tube. My uncle went there and terrorized the nurses saying he had power of attorney and had them remove the feeding tube. My uncle and my mother visited, found out what happened, the medical staff said they couldn't do anything. Uncle and mother were in the process of having a lawyer overturn this, when she died about a week after the event, basically from being withheld food/water. As you can imagine it was tremendously distressing to my mom, who was not sure of her mother's actual wishes as she couldn't speak at the time.
This is relatively mild for this thread and I'm leaving out decades of spicier Shakespearean-level family drama
However, upon learning this, disinherited kid #1 complains that it's "not fair" because other siblings have numerically more children and thus the rightful "share" of disinherited #1 is being reduced.
However, upon learning this, disinherited kid #1 complains that it's "not fair" because other siblings have numerically more children and thus the rightful "share" of disinherited #1 is being reduced.
No drama here, but my approach has been to split the inheritance 50/50 between my siblings and their children. That way, each sibling has a equal share of half my estate, and each of my nieces/nephews receives equal shares of the remaining half.
Otherwise it would have felt weird -- like I was penalizing family members for their having more children.
I was fortunate in having a long-time family friend, an ex-IRS attorney, draft the particulars of my will. I've also been open about it with everyone, so there should be no surprises.
I am not being open at all about my will Because it is highly likely I will change my mind. Right now our will is set up to divide our state among our siblings and various organizations. I expect we will spend a lot of the money and they’ll be less of it to give out As we get older. As that happens I’m gonna cut my siblings out and give to a couple organizations that do the work I like.I think there are some auto fill gremlins afoot in the above post...
Even though both attorneys we have consulted about Wells suggest we talk about it with our errors, I will not do that because it sets up expectations that likely will not occur.
I am not being open at all about my will Because it is highly likely I will change my mind. Right now our will is set up to divide our state among our siblings and various organizations. I expect we will spend a lot of the money and they’ll be less of it to give out As we get older. As that happens I’m gonna cut my siblings out and give to a couple organizations that do the work I like.I think there are some auto fill gremlins afoot in the above post...
Even though both attorneys we have consulted about Wells suggest we talk about it with our errors, I will not do that because it sets up expectations that likely will not occur.
Just chiming in to say be sure to use percentages, so the proportions stay the same, even if your nest egg shrinks. That way, everyone you want to remember still gets something.
I am not being open at all about my will Because it is highly likely I will change my mind. ....
Even though both attorneys we have consulted about [Wills] suggest we talk about it with our [heirs], I will not do that because it sets up expectations that likely will not occur.
I usually do recommend transparency to my own estate planning clients.
The difficult issue is that many people will never fully be 'set' in their estate plans. I can imagine that if you have children and none of them is an addict or something you want to leave everything to them equally but as a childless person, I expect to keep changing my will every 5-10 years for the rest of my life, since friends and relatives may change or pass away.
I agree that openness is important and people have been open to us about their wills which I really appreciate, but I don't want to give anyone any expectations that may not come true.
We let him know never to count on receiving anything for his retirement plans because stuff happens. He'll likely get a substantial amount but there's never a guarantee. One or two bad injuries or lingering illnesses and that money could get sucked away for medical care.
From what we hear, SIL is panicking because she didn't expect her parents to live this long, and her DH is still working at nearly age 69 to make up for spending down his retirement account earlier.
We let him know never to count on receiving anything for his retirement plans because stuff happens. He'll likely get a substantial amount but there's never a guarantee. One or two bad injuries or lingering illnesses and that money could get sucked away for medical care.
From what we hear, SIL is panicking because she didn't expect her parents to live this long, and her DH is still working at nearly age 69 to make up for spending down his retirement account earlier.
I am so grateful that I can be happy my father is living a long time.
My mom died just over a year ago, and while there was no inheritance since my father is still living there was nevertheless plenty of drama. My mother had advanced stage cancer so it was no surprise that she was in her final days, my aunt, her sister, was at my parents house helping to take care of a few things in preparation for the funeral and to spend the last days with her sister. Well, little did any of us realize that those last days would also involve taking jewelry from my mother.I would report the theft. People with cancer need all the help they can get, and $15k is a lot of help for someone.
My wife found a ring that my mom inherited from her grandmother in a drawer and said to my aunt, is this your grandmother's ring? At that point my aunt took it and pocketed it, when questioned she said it was for safe keeping, an insured ring that has been in the same spot for over a decade. This is not the hope diamond, it's probably worth $15k. The plot thickens when we find out that one of my mom's last wishes was for that ring to be used in a brooch for cancer survivors. We tell my aunt this and ask for the ring back and she flatly says, "no." I continue to ask for it back and she starts playing the victim, not understanding my "obsession." My father continues to feel immense guilt by not being able to satisfy one of my mom's final wishes.
She wore the ring to my mom's funeral, I didn't say a word to her that day and never will again. Things man, they make people weird.
I'd like to know more of the backstory about this ring.
How was it assigned by the grandmother to the deceased?
How did the deceased make her wishes about the brooch for cancer survivors known?
I'd like to know more of the backstory about this ring.
How was it assigned by the grandmother to the deceased?
How did the deceased make her wishes about the brooch for cancer survivors known?
Even if her wishes for cancer survivors weren't know, its still theft. Nothing was left to the aunt so unless the aunt believes the ring didn't rightfully belong to the mom in the first place, it is theft whether the mom wanted it to be used for cancer support, to be given to her own child, or to be buried with her so that all value was lost.
If the mom rightfully owned the ring, that's the only thing that mattered.
Since the relationship with the aunt is already fractured to the point of being broken, I'd likely play hardball and tell her that while I'm glad she's had time to enjoy the ring, it's time to return what she removed from your mother's things and if you don't have the ring by November 15th, you are going to report the theft to your insurance company and the police. Actually, first I'd send a very polite and somewhat meek email asking if she would please return your mother's ring that she took from the drawer. That would be in the hopes that she would admit in writing to having taken it. Then I'd make the threat.
Not because I would desperately want the ring back, but because stealing from a dead person is pretty fucked up.
I'd like to know more of the backstory about this ring.
How was it assigned by the grandmother to the deceased?
How did the deceased make her wishes about the brooch for cancer survivors known?
I'd like to know more of the backstory about this ring.
How was it assigned by the grandmother to the deceased?
How did the deceased make her wishes about the brooch for cancer survivors known?
Even if her wishes for cancer survivors weren't know, its still theft. Nothing was left to the aunt so unless the aunt believes the ring didn't rightfully belong to the mom in the first place, it is theft whether the mom wanted it to be used for cancer support, to be given to her own child, or to be buried with her so that all value was lost.
If the mom rightfully owned the ring, that's the only thing that mattered.
Since the relationship with the aunt is already fractured to the point of being broken, I'd likely play hardball and tell her that while I'm glad she's had time to enjoy the ring, it's time to return what she removed from your mother's things and if you don't have the ring by November 15th, you are going to report the theft to your insurance company and the police. Actually, first I'd send a very polite and somewhat meek email asking if she would please return your mother's ring that she took from the drawer. That would be in the hopes that she would admit in writing to having taken it. Then I'd make the threat.
Not because I would desperately want the ring back, but because stealing from a dead person is pretty fucked up.
I'm sorry about the loss of your mom...and your aunt.I'd like to know more of the backstory about this ring.
How was it assigned by the grandmother to the deceased?
How did the deceased make her wishes about the brooch for cancer survivors known?
Sure.
My great-grandmother had two rings, roughly equal in value. When she passed away they went to my grandmother. When she passed away they were to be split among my grandmothers two children, my mom and my aunt. My mom gave my aunt first choice since my mother wasn't really into jewelry. My grandmother died a decade ago, none of this had ever been contested. My dad and I both recognize it's theft, we spoke with our attorney about it, he said he would draft a demand letter threatening to go to the authorities. With it being a smaller amount we both decided that letting her live with guilt (and making sure to tell her kids she's a thief) was all we were willing to do.
After my mother received the news that her cancer had returned and spread to her lungs and brain she began to plan her own demise. Nothing was written down, but obviously that doesn't matter because it's theft. I hadn't thought about it for awhile but since she died on October 26th, it came to my mind again.
The positive thing that came out of it was my father tightened up his estate planning and it actually brought him and me closer.
I'd like to know more of the backstory about this ring.
How was it assigned by the grandmother to the deceased?
How did the deceased make her wishes about the brooch for cancer survivors known?
Even if her wishes for cancer survivors weren't know, its still theft. Nothing was left to the aunt so unless the aunt believes the ring didn't rightfully belong to the mom in the first place, it is theft whether the mom wanted it to be used for cancer support, to be given to her own child, or to be buried with her so that all value was lost.
If the mom rightfully owned the ring, that's the only thing that mattered.
Since the relationship with the aunt is already fractured to the point of being broken, I'd likely play hardball and tell her that while I'm glad she's had time to enjoy the ring, it's time to return what she removed from your mother's things and if you don't have the ring by November 15th, you are going to report the theft to your insurance company and the police. Actually, first I'd send a very polite and somewhat meek email asking if she would please return your mother's ring that she took from the drawer. That would be in the hopes that she would admit in writing to having taken it. Then I'd make the threat.
Not because I would desperately want the ring back, but because stealing from a dead person is pretty fucked up.
Re bolded: Whether the aunt believes it or not is irrelevant. It's likely she's using some internal justification that she's entitled to it. Theft is theft.
Family gave a $25k gift to a sibling, so now wants to consider the daughter living in their home at a rate of $2500/month "to make it fair."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/my-frugal-31-year-old-daughter-is-living-at-home-while-she-pays-off-her-student-loan-isnt-that-the-equivalent-of-a-2500-monthly-gift-2019-11-06?mod=the-moneyist
Sounds like someone is counting up this stuff way before mom and dad are dead.
Family gave a $25k gift to a sibling, so now wants to consider the daughter living in their home at a rate of $2500/month "to make it fair."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/my-frugal-31-year-old-daughter-is-living-at-home-while-she-pays-off-her-student-loan-isnt-that-the-equivalent-of-a-2500-monthly-gift-2019-11-06?mod=the-moneyist
Sounds like someone is counting up this stuff way before mom and dad are dead.
Easy solution is for the parents to just charge rent then.
So I've read the thread and have only very little to contribute until yesterday and then the shit hit the fan.Wow!
Over 30 years ago I got divorced from an abusive, violent jerk. We've co-existed (him telling his family what a bitch I was, me putting my head down and pulling myself out of debt and not getting child support). We had 2 children, one of whom was disabled but I married a stellar stand up guy and moved on. I dealt with the once in a while visits and the excuses but it was a small price to pay for peace of mind.
3 years ago my former MIL passed away. We only found out because I google him on a regular basis to see if he's dead and her obituary came up. We're not talking about someone with a small life, if you googled her name you'd know that she was well known and respected in her field. No one bothered to tell my son or myself and we actually don't live that far away.
Yesterday my former SIL contacted my son and let him know that there was an inheritance. Her excuse for not letting him know earlier was that she couldn't find him or my daughter. There are only 8 people on the planet (trust me on this) with that last name and when I google him my address and phone number is the second hit. They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
They think we should be grateful for whatever we get and while I don't think inheritance is guaranteed they can't figure out why I seem to be ambivalent about $50,000. There's something to be said for not needing someone else's money.
So I've read the thread and have only very little to contribute until yesterday and then the shit hit the fan.
Over 30 years ago I got divorced from an abusive, violent jerk. We've co-existed (him telling his family what a bitch I was, me putting my head down and pulling myself out of debt and not getting child support). We had 2 children, one of whom was disabled but I married a stellar stand up guy and moved on. I dealt with the once in a while visits and the excuses but it was a small price to pay for peace of mind.
3 years ago my former MIL passed away. We only found out because I google him on a regular basis to see if he's dead and her obituary came up. We're not talking about someone with a small life, if you googled her name you'd know that she was well known and respected in her field. No one bothered to tell my son or myself and we actually don't live that far away.
Yesterday my former SIL contacted my son and let him know that there was an inheritance. Her excuse for not letting him know earlier was that she couldn't find him or my daughter. There are only 8 people on the planet (trust me on this) with that last name and when I google him my address and phone number is the second hit. They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
They think we should be grateful for whatever we get and while I don't think inheritance is guaranteed they can't figure out why I seem to be ambivalent about $50,000. There's something to be said for not needing someone else's money.
So I've read the thread and have only very little to contribute until yesterday and then the shit hit the fan.
Over 30 years ago I got divorced from an abusive, violent jerk. We've co-existed (him telling his family what a bitch I was, me putting my head down and pulling myself out of debt and not getting child support). We had 2 children, one of whom was disabled but I married a stellar stand up guy and moved on. I dealt with the once in a while visits and the excuses but it was a small price to pay for peace of mind.
3 years ago my former MIL passed away. We only found out because I google him on a regular basis to see if he's dead and her obituary came up. We're not talking about someone with a small life, if you googled her name you'd know that she was well known and respected in her field. No one bothered to tell my son or myself and we actually don't live that far away.
Yesterday my former SIL contacted my son and let him know that there was an inheritance. Her excuse for not letting him know earlier was that she couldn't find him or my daughter. There are only 8 people on the planet (trust me on this) with that last name and when I google him my address and phone number is the second hit. They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
They think we should be grateful for whatever we get and while I don't think inheritance is guaranteed they can't figure out why I seem to be ambivalent about $50,000. There's something to be said for not needing someone else's money.
Yeah, I would want to see the registered will. Just in case your ex brow-beat your SIL and family into cheating your son out of more.
And paying a lawyer to do it means you don't have to put up with their lies in person, if that's what happens. Nor, necessarily, do you need to put up with them in person even if they are telling the truth, either. :)
Family gave a $25k gift to a sibling, so now wants to consider the daughter living in their home at a rate of $2500/month "to make it fair."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/my-frugal-31-year-old-daughter-is-living-at-home-while-she-pays-off-her-student-loan-isnt-that-the-equivalent-of-a-2500-monthly-gift-2019-11-06?mod=the-moneyist
Sounds like someone is counting up this stuff way before mom and dad are dead.
Easy solution is for the parents to just charge rent then.
$2500/month sounds more like market rate for an entire house, not a bedroom and common area access.
They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
Allow me to echo the others' statements that you are absolutely doing the right thing by involving your attorney. Please let us know how it goes--I'm very curious to know if your Spidey Senses are right about them trying to pull a fast one on you.
They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
Allow me to echo the others' statements that you are absolutely doing the right thing by involving your attorney. Please let us know how it goes--I'm very curious to know if your Spidey Senses are right about them trying to pull a fast one on you.
They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
Allow me to echo the others' statements that you are absolutely doing the right thing by involving your attorney. Please let us know how it goes--I'm very curious to know if your Spidey Senses are right about them trying to pull a fast one on you.
While I agree with getting a lawyer to handle this, I'm curious as to why you are involved at all in an inheritance to your adult son.
I really don't understand how someone can justify not telling close, direct descendents of a death. Especially if there are fewer than 5 people total..
But it happens.
I get it.... you are describing waiting 2-3 weeks to send the news (by letter). But what about NEVER telling? Just Ghosting?I really don't understand how someone can justify not telling close, direct descendents of a death. Especially if there are fewer than 5 people total..
But it happens.
Having gone thru one funeral with my crazy-ass sister-in-law, I could fully understand why my wife and her two brothers might not tell their other sister about their mom's death until after the funeral. Frankly, I could understand why they would let a lawyer's letter telling her how much we was inheriting be the first she heard of it -- particularly if (hopefully) the will disinherits her if she contests it.
Life's too short to volunteer to spend time with some people.
I wouldn't suggest they not tell their sister, and I don't think it's the right thing to do, but I wouldn't blame them if they did it either.
I get it.... you are describing waiting 2-3 weeks to send the news (by letter). But what about NEVER telling? Just Ghosting?I really don't understand how someone can justify not telling close, direct descendents of a death. Especially if there are fewer than 5 people total..
But it happens.
Having gone thru one funeral with my crazy-ass sister-in-law, I could fully understand why my wife and her two brothers might not tell their other sister about their mom's death until after the funeral. Frankly, I could understand why they would let a lawyer's letter telling her how much we was inheriting be the first she heard of it -- particularly if (hopefully) the will disinherits her if she contests it.
Life's too short to volunteer to spend time with some people.
I wouldn't suggest they not tell their sister, and I don't think it's the right thing to do, but I wouldn't blame them if they did it either.
Yeah, that's pretty tacky.I get it.... you are describing waiting 2-3 weeks to send the news (by letter). But what about NEVER telling? Just Ghosting?I really don't understand how someone can justify not telling close, direct descendents of a death. Especially if there are fewer than 5 people total..
But it happens.
Having gone thru one funeral with my crazy-ass sister-in-law, I could fully understand why my wife and her two brothers might not tell their other sister about their mom's death until after the funeral. Frankly, I could understand why they would let a lawyer's letter telling her how much we was inheriting be the first she heard of it -- particularly if (hopefully) the will disinherits her if she contests it.
Life's too short to volunteer to spend time with some people.
I wouldn't suggest they not tell their sister, and I don't think it's the right thing to do, but I wouldn't blame them if they did it either.
My ex-husband wanted to have my son be a clone of him and he wasn't so ex-husband pretty much cut off all ties about 12 years ago. I don't understand not telling my son about his grandmother who he had a relationship with.
I'm the oldest of seven children.We were Holiday celebrating loving family. My Father was hardworking all his life and as a family, we worked the family publishing business growing up.
All families have ups and downs but we truly experienced pure evil in one younger brother. An absolute Narcissistic sociopath. We had joked he was the Charlie Sheen personality, but it came out it a demonic cunning plot.The worse thing was he was working with the family attorney, who had drawn up the family trust. My Dad had planned and worked very diligently on this.Todd wanted to be Trustee.No one objected because all he had to do was what my father instructed. Wrong so wrong. MY father got very ill, after a visit, my daughter and I were served with restraining orders for elder abuse. I'm a pediatric HH specialty RN, I lost my state bonding and could no longer work. my daughter was right in the middle of planning her Wedding. The older brother who worked the business until it sold and then made a success out of the Industrial complex investment. Todd moved in took his position. Todd wasn't satisfied with his portion of the LLC, so he took money from the trust deposited into my account and sent out a letter saying I was no longer in the partnership.
the attorney supported all these actions. Six days after my fathers death, he was removed from dialysis, my brothers decision. My siblings and myself received a letter stating we and our children and children's children were to be considered dead. Disinherited. This new update occurred 129 days prior to my father's death.
My brother is evil. The attorney, was an eye opener, he lied from the restraining orders, to how much the Estate was worth, to things about our life, he was an outright crook. It feels good to vent because going through the legal process was frustrating. I was told the truth doesn't matter. People lie all the time. The Judicial system, political and financial system in our country all need to be overhauled and brought down to grassroots.
The Evil bro isn't happy. The rest of the family has formed their own family units with grandchildren.
The Dirty John attorney still practices ,hopefully, he has some regrets but I doubt it.
I'm doing Ok. Feels good to vent. It seems criminal two men could do so much damage and walk away with 50 million. My brother still complains about death taxes to my mom.
I'm the oldest of seven children.We were Holiday celebrating loving family. My Father was hardworking all his life and as a family, we worked the family publishing business growing up.
All families have ups and downs but we truly experienced pure evil in one younger brother. An absolute Narcissistic sociopath. We had joked he was the Charlie Sheen personality, but it came out it a demonic cunning plot.The worse thing was he was working with the family attorney, who had drawn up the family trust. My Dad had planned and worked very diligently on this.Todd wanted to be Trustee.No one objected because all he had to do was what my father instructed. Wrong so wrong. MY father got very ill, after a visit, my daughter and I were served with restraining orders for elder abuse. I'm a pediatric HH specialty RN, I lost my state bonding and could no longer work. my daughter was right in the middle of planning her Wedding. The older brother who worked the business until it sold and then made a success out of the Industrial complex investment. Todd moved in took his position. Todd wasn't satisfied with his portion of the LLC, so he took money from the trust deposited into my account and sent out a letter saying I was no longer in the partnership.
the attorney supported all these actions. Six days after my fathers death, he was removed from dialysis, my brothers decision. My siblings and myself received a letter stating we and our children and children's children were to be considered dead. Disinherited. This new update occurred 129 days prior to my father's death.
My brother is evil. The attorney, was an eye opener, he lied from the restraining orders, to how much the Estate was worth, to things about our life, he was an outright crook. It feels good to vent because going through the legal process was frustrating. I was told the truth doesn't matter. People lie all the time. The Judicial system, political and financial system in our country all need to be overhauled and brought down to grassroots.
The Evil bro isn't happy. The rest of the family has formed their own family units with grandchildren.
The Dirty John attorney still practices ,hopefully, he has some regrets but I doubt it.
I'm doing Ok. Feels good to vent. It seems criminal two men could do so much damage and walk away with 50 million. My brother still complains about death taxes to my mom.
I expect similar drama when my parents die. My sister will show up and expect to be running the show and will start to grab things. She is older and has always been a bossy bitch and is quite cray-cray. She is 2 years older than me but still likes to think of me as "little girl" (her actual remark to me when fighting) even though I am far more educated, have 30X her wealth, and have very well-scrubbed, educated young women for my daughters. Bonus, I am not a pathological liar like she is.
About 20 years ago my parents set up a living trust and told me that they have me on the trust. They said they do not have my sister on it but I have not seen the actual document. I did go down with them to sign for their safe deposit box so I can access it one day. The idea is that I can go down and begin to execute their wishes as a co-trustee and give my sister half, and they don't trust her to handle things. I will follow their wishes. I just hope they have informed her of how it is going to go but unfortunately I don't think they have dealt with that.
I will track what she takes and charge her for it out of her portion of the estate. I am sure she will want everything to be given to her kids for furnishings and keepsakes, but anything that is not just garage sale crap will be accounted for and taken from her half.
So sad to anticipate all that. I hope I can convince my parents to get rid of extra vehicles and the big motorhome before they die--those are the first items my sister will presume are going her way for her sons.
ugh, dread. I hope all of this is at least 15 years out.
Really ask yourself if it's worth the effort and strife to do this. What would happen if you took the stuff you wanted and looked after the truly valuable items (let's say anything over $1000) and let her pillage the rest? You would likely end up a couple thousand dollars less well-off. You will have inherited a couple thousand dollars less. (And that's if she makes off with $4000 worth of stuff, which is quite a lot when we are talking only low value items--used furnishing and keepsakes.) But you will save yourself the headache and the heartache. And the time. Why? So she doesn't get to "win" by maybe a couple thousand dollars? Yes, it's messed up that [if] she would do that. But digging in your heels over a relatively small amount of money seems awfully stubborn, and likely to cause you much unnecessary anguish. It seems to me like it would be much better to draw a healthy boundary that is somewhere a bit away from "exactly 50/50, even for knick knacks and used furniture". Protect that boundary, and let her indulge her ugliness and greed up to that line.
I expect similar drama when my parents die. My sister will show up and expect to be running the show and will start to grab things. She is older and has always been a bossy bitch and is quite cray-cray. She is 2 years older than me but still likes to think of me as "little girl" (her actual remark to me when fighting) even though I am far more educated, have 30X her wealth, and have very well-scrubbed, educated young women for my daughters. Bonus, I am not a pathological liar like she is.
About 20 years ago my parents set up a living trust and told me that they have me on the trust. They said they do not have my sister on it but I have not seen the actual document. I did go down with them to sign for their safe deposit box so I can access it one day. The idea is that I can go down and begin to execute their wishes as a co-trustee and give my sister half, and they don't trust her to handle things. I will follow their wishes. I just hope they have informed her of how it is going to go but unfortunately I don't think they have dealt with that.
I will track what she takes and charge her for it out of her portion of the estate. I am sure she will want everything to be given to her kids for furnishings and keepsakes, but anything that is not just garage sale crap will be accounted for and taken from her half.
So sad to anticipate all that. I hope I can convince my parents to get rid of extra vehicles and the big motorhome before they die--those are the first items my sister will presume are going her way for her sons.
ugh, dread. I hope all of this is at least 15 years out.
I expect similar drama when my parents die. My sister will show up and expect to be running the show and will start to grab things. She is older and has always been a bossy bitch and is quite cray-cray. She is 2 years older than me but still likes to think of me as "little girl" (her actual remark to me when fighting) even though I am far more educated, have 30X her wealth, and have very well-scrubbed, educated young women for my daughters. Bonus, I am not a pathological liar like she is.
About 20 years ago my parents set up a living trust and told me that they have me on the trust. They said they do not have my sister on it but I have not seen the actual document. I did go down with them to sign for their safe deposit box so I can access it one day. The idea is that I can go down and begin to execute their wishes as a co-trustee and give my sister half, and they don't trust her to handle things. I will follow their wishes. I just hope they have informed her of how it is going to go but unfortunately I don't think they have dealt with that.
I will track what she takes and charge her for it out of her portion of the estate. I am sure she will want everything to be given to her kids for furnishings and keepsakes, but anything that is not just garage sale crap will be accounted for and taken from her half.
So sad to anticipate all that. I hope I can convince my parents to get rid of extra vehicles and the big motorhome before they die--those are the first items my sister will presume are going her way for her sons.
ugh, dread. I hope all of this is at least 15 years out.
That sounds awful. Hopefully the RVs will be long gone, and hopefully they actually put their assets into the trust and have kept it updated.
If they still have an RV, I bet there are some interesting ways to sabotage it...
On the bright side, they put you in charge, rather than your sister.
The original comment was about a year ago and since then I asked the folks if my sister knew she was not on the trust. They said she does not know. They said they are sure I would distribute her half equally to her when the time comes, they know I will do the right thing. They are not up for the drama of telling her now and frankly neither am I. I can be the meany later.
So again I will pray they live at least another 20 years and have sold off the big stuff by then. I am starting to think they might get rid of the massive RV well before they are gone because it is one of those Holiday Rambler jumbo jobbers that they will soon not be able to handle anyway with advancing age. Already I don't think they have taken it out in the last 3 years due to knee replacements so perhaps it will be gone within another 5 years and if not I will make the suggestion along the way.
I let them know that as far as "stuff" I expect my sister to come in and do the mad grab but that I would be reasonable and not make a huge deal about that and just account generally for it. Big stuff will be itemized out of her cash balance. They agreed that is a good approach. I agree as Cb noted above, having her kids swarm the place removing all the tchotkies and pure volume of things will be nicer than having to haul it out myself.
During that conversation I asked for a specific Pyrex bowl that I have known my whole life and so Mom has now given it to me. I let Dad know that out of the huge workshop of tools and power equipment, all I want is the hammer he built our house with back in 1972. He thought that was wonderful. I think our talk confirmed that they chose the right daughter to handle their legacy.
The original comment was about a year ago and since then I asked the folks if my sister knew she was not on the trust. They said she does not know. They said they are sure I would distribute her half equally to her when the time comes, they know I will do the right thing. They are not up for the drama of telling her now and frankly neither am I. I can be the meany later.
So again I will pray they live at least another 20 years and have sold off the big stuff by then. I am starting to think they might get rid of the massive RV well before they are gone because it is one of those Holiday Rambler jumbo jobbers that they will soon not be able to handle anyway with advancing age. Already I don't think they have taken it out in the last 3 years due to knee replacements so perhaps it will be gone within another 5 years and if not I will make the suggestion along the way.
I let them know that as far as "stuff" I expect my sister to come in and do the mad grab but that I would be reasonable and not make a huge deal about that and just account generally for it. Big stuff will be itemized out of her cash balance. They agreed that is a good approach. I agree as Cb noted above, having her kids swarm the place removing all the tchotkies and pure volume of things will be nicer than having to haul it out myself.
During that conversation I asked for a specific Pyrex bowl that I have known my whole life and so Mom has now given it to me. I let Dad know that out of the huge workshop of tools and power equipment, all I want is the hammer he built our house with back in 1972. He thought that was wonderful. I think our talk confirmed that they chose the right daughter to handle their legacy.
My unsolicited advice: If the Holiday Rambler is still around when they pass, just give it to your sister. The value of the RV will likely not make much of any impact on your net worth, and the headache won't be worth it. You'd be giving her a white elephant that she thinks she wants.
The original comment was about a year ago and since then I asked the folks if my sister knew she was not on the trust. They said she does not know. They said they are sure I would distribute her half equally to her when the time comes, they know I will do the right thing. They are not up for the drama of telling her now and frankly neither am I. I can be the meany later.
So again I will pray they live at least another 20 years and have sold off the big stuff by then. I am starting to think they might get rid of the massive RV well before they are gone because it is one of those Holiday Rambler jumbo jobbers that they will soon not be able to handle anyway with advancing age. Already I don't think they have taken it out in the last 3 years due to knee replacements so perhaps it will be gone within another 5 years and if not I will make the suggestion along the way.
I let them know that as far as "stuff" I expect my sister to come in and do the mad grab but that I would be reasonable and not make a huge deal about that and just account generally for it. Big stuff will be itemized out of her cash balance. They agreed that is a good approach. I agree as Cb noted above, having her kids swarm the place removing all the tchotkies and pure volume of things will be nicer than having to haul it out myself.
During that conversation I asked for a specific Pyrex bowl that I have known my whole life and so Mom has now given it to me. I let Dad know that out of the huge workshop of tools and power equipment, all I want is the hammer he built our house with back in 1972. He thought that was wonderful. I think our talk confirmed that they chose the right daughter to handle their legacy.
My unsolicited advice: If the Holiday Rambler is still around when they pass, just give it to your sister. The value of the RV will likely not make much of any impact on your net worth, and the headache won't be worth it. You'd be giving her a white elephant that she thinks she wants.
That's very good advice.
So is never rewarding bad behavior.
It takes wisdom and situational knowledge to know which of these to pick from.
The RV is worth about 50K right now, it is the luxury bus version. If everything was set in motion now it would never be simply handed over to my sister like some dusty couch just to avoid expected drama.I would suggest a Plan to let the sister have it (at future current trade-in value). However, put up a token resistance so she thinks she's "gotten something over" on you. You can then be gracious.
She can have it but $50K is coming off her side, maybe I would allow for a little grace and say less than that since I would have avoided the hassle of disposing of it.
This is no drama at all and I don't understand why the default is to look the other way. Accounting for it makes total sense. If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
This is not about what impact it has to my net worth, it is about dividing things roughly equally to abide by their wishes.
If the thing is still sitting there in 20 years I would probably see it differently but right now it is their 2nd largest physical asset after their home.
The RV is worth about 50K right now, it is the luxury bus version. If everything was set in motion now it would never be simply handed over to my sister like some dusty couch just to avoid expected drama.
She can have it but $50K is coming off her side, maybe I would allow for a little grace and say less than that since I would have avoided the hassle of disposing of it.
This is no drama at all and I don't understand why the default is to look the other way. Accounting for it makes total sense. If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
This is not about what impact it has to my net worth, it is about dividing things roughly equally to abide by their wishes.
If the thing is still sitting there in 20 years I would probably see it differently but right now it is their 2nd largest physical asset after their home.
+1. I love "boo fucking hoo" and am looking forward to appropriating it, with MNP's permission.The RV is worth about 50K right now, it is the luxury bus version. If everything was set in motion now it would never be simply handed over to my sister like some dusty couch just to avoid expected drama.
She can have it but $50K is coming off her side, maybe I would allow for a little grace and say less than that since I would have avoided the hassle of disposing of it.
This is no drama at all and I don't understand why the default is to look the other way. Accounting for it makes total sense. If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
This is not about what impact it has to my net worth, it is about dividing things roughly equally to abide by their wishes.
If the thing is still sitting there in 20 years I would probably see it differently but right now it is their 2nd largest physical asset after their home.
Yesterday DH received an email from his “black sheep” sister concerning her hurt feelings about distribution of their dad’s estate. I think I will tell him to respond to her “ boo fucking hoo.”
Haha.
The RV is worth about 50K right now, it is the luxury bus version. If everything was set in motion now it would never be simply handed over to my sister like some dusty couch just to avoid expected drama.
She can have it but $50K is coming off her side, maybe I would allow for a little grace and say less than that since I would have avoided the hassle of disposing of it.
This is no drama at all and I don't understand why the default is to look the other way. Accounting for it makes total sense. If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
This is not about what impact it has to my net worth, it is about dividing things roughly equally to abide by their wishes.
If the thing is still sitting there in 20 years I would probably see it differently but right now it is their 2nd largest physical asset after their home.
I don't have a black sheep sibling, so I don't have hard feelings yet....and it's none of my business, but does she have any valid reason to be hurt? was the estate not divided evenly?The RV is worth about 50K right now, it is the luxury bus version. If everything was set in motion now it would never be simply handed over to my sister like some dusty couch just to avoid expected drama.
She can have it but $50K is coming off her side, maybe I would allow for a little grace and say less than that since I would have avoided the hassle of disposing of it.
This is no drama at all and I don't understand why the default is to look the other way. Accounting for it makes total sense. If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
This is not about what impact it has to my net worth, it is about dividing things roughly equally to abide by their wishes.
If the thing is still sitting there in 20 years I would probably see it differently but right now it is their 2nd largest physical asset after their home.
Yesterday DH received an email from his “black sheep” sister concerning her hurt feelings about distribution of their dad’s estate. I think I will tell him to respond to her “ boo fucking hoo.”
Haha.
+1. I love "boo fucking hoo" and am looking forward to appropriating it, with MNP's permission.If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
Yesterday DH received an email from his “black sheep” sister concerning her hurt feelings about distribution of their dad’s estate. I think I will tell him to respond to her “ boo fucking hoo.”
Haha.
+1. I love "boo fucking hoo" and am looking forward to appropriating it, with MNP's permission.If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
Yesterday DH received an email from his “black sheep” sister concerning her hurt feelings about distribution of their dad’s estate. I think I will tell him to respond to her “ boo fucking hoo.”
Haha.
For sure! Feels good to say, doesn't it.
She didn't do any cleaning up of the cars, boat, or house, nor held the garage sale to liquidate the small stuff, nor did she do the maintenance and yard care all summer to keep the house in show-ready shape, but she was very willing to sit on her ample ass and declare that her brother had settled for far too little for every item. Every item, every time, argued ad nauseam about what he should have done instead. Her best move was to act like she was going to withhold her signature from the title transfer items, playing a power move with passive aggressive glee. It was truly a horrible time.
OMG, I was talking to my brother this morning. He does not follow this forum. He said, "Whatever you do, never, ever name more than one person to be your Executor or Trustee. Sure, have a successor, but never a Co-Anything." My parents named my sisters for Medical and my brother and me for Financial. My sisters are night and day. One's a spendthrift (aka BSS above) and the other has frugal chops. There was so much conflict! I could go on for pages, but I don't want to relive it.
Take my brother's wise advice, people!
OMG, I was talking to my brother this morning. He does not follow this forum. He said, "Whatever you do, never, ever name more than one person to be your Executor or Trustee. Sure, have a successor, but never a Co-Anything." My parents named my sisters for Medical and my brother and me for Financial. My sisters are night and day. One's a spendthrift (aka BSS above) and the other has frugal chops. There was so much conflict! I could go on for pages, but I don't want to relive it.
Take my brother's wise advice, people!
I don't have a black sheep sibling, so I don't have hard feelings yet....and it's none of my business, but does she have any valid reason to be hurt? was the estate not divided evenly?The RV is worth about 50K right now, it is the luxury bus version. If everything was set in motion now it would never be simply handed over to my sister like some dusty couch just to avoid expected drama.
She can have it but $50K is coming off her side, maybe I would allow for a little grace and say less than that since I would have avoided the hassle of disposing of it.
This is no drama at all and I don't understand why the default is to look the other way. Accounting for it makes total sense. If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
This is not about what impact it has to my net worth, it is about dividing things roughly equally to abide by their wishes.
If the thing is still sitting there in 20 years I would probably see it differently but right now it is their 2nd largest physical asset after their home.
Yesterday DH received an email from his “black sheep” sister concerning her hurt feelings about distribution of their dad’s estate. I think I will tell him to respond to her “ boo fucking hoo.”
Haha.
I dread my mom’s passing. Mainly because I absolutely adore her, but secondarily because she and my (now-deceased) father made me and my two siblings co-executors and, to make matters worse, co-owners on a transfer on death deed for their house. And one of my sisters has resided in said house for > 30 years, and will be very tough to dislodge, despite being completely incapable of caring for said house. She hasn’t even done her own laundry in > 30 years. (Can you imagine having your 83-year-old mother doing your laundry?) Reading these stories doesn’t make me feel better.It may be tough for you to decide to do it, but I'm pretty sure that legally it's quite straightforward.
OMG, I was talking to my brother this morning. He does not follow this forum. He said, "Whatever you do, never, ever name more than one person to be your Executor or Trustee. Sure, have a successor, but never a Co-Anything." My parents named my sisters for Medical and my brother and me for Financial. My sisters are night and day. One's a spendthrift (aka BSS above) and the other has frugal chops. There was so much conflict! I could go on for pages, but I don't want to relive it.
Take my brother's wise advice, people!
It amazes me that people care that much if they aren't an executor.
It amazes me that people care that much if they aren't an executor.
Me too. My father has named my husband as executor, and none of us daughters can figure out why. I'm the only married one. Is this a weird manifestation of sexism? (Uniikely given his general attitude to women) Is it a desire not to pick one child over the others?
Anyway, DH has already told him he'll refuse and ask that my sister--the one who lives in the same country as my father, has experience with the legal system there, and is fluent in the language--be appointed instead.
"The nicest guy" is such a dangerous dude when it comes to that stuff. My in-laws were often suckers for the handsome young man in the nice suit and got sucked into some crap. Especially if the guy had pictures of his kids to show. Everyone was their instant best friend and they would have fallen for that sort of thing you describe. They were nice people, too nice, and it made them a mark.
After they died it was a hot second before their neighbors were cruising around looking for an angle, for a deal, for some gimme. One guy was really pissed off that we would not allow him to park his car in the empty garage, you know, because no one was using it. He thought we were completely unreasonable and almost as if it was his right.
So I've read the thread and have only very little to contribute until yesterday and then the shit hit the fan.
Over 30 years ago I got divorced from an abusive, violent jerk. We've co-existed (him telling his family what a bitch I was, me putting my head down and pulling myself out of debt and not getting child support). We had 2 children, one of whom was disabled but I married a stellar stand up guy and moved on. I dealt with the once in a while visits and the excuses but it was a small price to pay for peace of mind.
3 years ago my former MIL passed away. We only found out because I google him on a regular basis to see if he's dead and her obituary came up. We're not talking about someone with a small life, if you googled her name you'd know that she was well known and respected in her field. No one bothered to tell my son or myself and we actually don't live that far away.
Yesterday my former SIL contacted my son and let him know that there was an inheritance. Her excuse for not letting him know earlier was that she couldn't find him or my daughter. There are only 8 people on the planet (trust me on this) with that last name and when I google him my address and phone number is the second hit. They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
They think we should be grateful for whatever we get and while I don't think inheritance is guaranteed they can't figure out why I seem to be ambivalent about $50,000. There's something to be said for not needing someone else's money.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/my-son-says-ive-amounted-to-nothing-should-i-cut-him-from-my-will/ar-BBZKLyJ?ocid=spartandhp
Subject needs to read this thread.
@Chris Pascale Oh, you look really good in that suit. Such a sharp young man, such cute kids. ;P
We are talking around €300,000 gross including the house, leaving about €175,000 net to be divided between both of us. A large part will be eaten up by Dutch inheritance taxes.
US federal estate taxes apply to amounts over the exemption amount, which is currently about $11.5 million per person (set to decrease by half in 2026), and is indexed for inflation. That includes lifetime giving, bc the estate and gift tax is a unified tax on transfers. You also get an extra $15,000 per person annually (the annual exemption amount) that's not counted towards the $11 million.We are talking around €300,000 gross including the house, leaving about €175,000 net to be divided between both of us. A large part will be eaten up by Dutch inheritance taxes.
I did not realize inheritance taxes in the Netherlands kicked in at that low of an amount (USA is closer to $5 million I think?)
Would it not make more sense for them to liquidate the estate earlier? For example, sell the house, gift both sisters money, then rent?
If I were facing a choice of owning a house until my last day and risking my children losing 1/2 of its value to taxes, as opposed to gifting them while I am still living, I would dispose of the house.
I'm not a tax professional, but I'm Dutch and interested. In the Netherlands (in 2019) a child pays nothing over the first €20,616, 10% over the next €124,727 and 20% over the rest. I assume the parents do not own their house debt free, leaving €175,000 euro to be devided after it is sold. Both children inherit €87,500 and have to pay €7,431 each (assuming standard circumstances).We are talking around €300,000 gross including the house, leaving about €175,000 net to be divided between both of us. A large part will be eaten up by Dutch inheritance taxes.
I did not realize inheritance taxes in the Netherlands kicked in at that low of an amount (USA is closer to $5 million I think?)
Would it not make more sense for them to liquidate the estate earlier? For example, sell the house, gift both sisters money, then rent?
If I were facing a choice of owning a house until my last day and risking my children losing 1/2 of its value to taxes, as opposed to gifting them while I am still living, I would dispose of the house.
Suppose you are forty years old, and your parents are sixty-eight. Your 68-year old parents can afford to give you $15,000 tax free annually. They can expect to live about another twenty years (based on demographic tables), so that's $300,000 on average that can be given without counting against their estate tax limit.
That seems very small compared to $11.2 million.
We are talking around €300,000 gross including the house, leaving about €175,000 net to be divided between both of us. A large part will be eaten up by Dutch inheritance taxes.
I did not realize inheritance taxes in the Netherlands kicked in at that low of an amount (USA is closer to $5 million I think?)
Would it not make more sense for them to liquidate the estate earlier? For example, sell the house, gift both sisters money, then rent?
If I were facing a choice of owning a house until my last day and risking my children losing 1/2 of its value to taxes, as opposed to gifting them while I am still living, I would dispose of the house.
While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!
While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!
While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!
I look at the huge death tax on the aristocracy in England and am sad about the toll it takes on great old ancient houses. So many end up in the National Trust because families cannot afford to keep them. After you’ve sold off acres of farm land and the paintings and fine furniture to pay taxes, there isnt much else you can do to stave off jettisoning the house.
While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!
I have heard the statistic that large pots of inherited wealth dissipate after just a few generations, but I don't believe inheritance tax is the sole controller of that.
Other factors are
1) inheritors spread the wealth over many people, reducing assets per capita
2) inheritors are not as motivated to coddle the assets as were the originators of the wealth—they just wanna spend and enhance their lifestyle
3) inheritors are not skilled at preserving and growing the assets as were the originators
4) inflation over generations
We have, in my family, an instance of multi generational wealth that started withgrandparents, blue collar people, who worked, invested, and had company stock that did well. Their only child is cheap as hell and has every dime they ever left him. His child,an only,child, is due to inherit millions. I doubt she has any idea how much is there.
She is a good kid but I will bet those assets die with her. The preservation of the assets is causing her dad anxiety. But you know, that is worry of his own making. He should not expect to exert control from the grave.
I look at the huge death tax on the aristocracy in England and am sad about the toll it takes on great old ancient houses. So many end up in the National Trust because families cannot afford to keep them. After you’ve sold off acres of farm land and the paintings and fine furniture to pay taxes, there isnt much else you can do to stave off jettisoning the house.
So yeah, death taxes at a high rate is a philosophy consistent with our populist government and generally I am ok with it, but there are downsides to everything and taxation is not the panacea to solve all things.
While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!
I have heard the statistic that large pots of inherited wealth dissipate after just a few generations, but I don't believe inheritance tax is the sole controller of that....
So yeah, death taxes at a high rate is a philosophy consistent with our populist government and generally I am ok with it, but there are downsides to everything and taxation is not the panacea to solve all things.
are you referring to the "populist government" that doubled the estate tax exemption in 2017? That "populist government"?
I dread my mom’s passing. Mainly because I absolutely adore her, but secondarily because she and my (now-deceased) father made me and my two siblings co-executors and, to make matters worse, co-owners on a transfer on death deed for their house. And one of my sisters has resided in said house for > 30 years, and will be very tough to dislodge, despite being completely incapable of caring for said house. She hasn’t even done her own laundry in > 30 years. (Can you imagine having your 83-year-old mother doing your laundry?) Reading these stories doesn’t make me feel better.It may be tough for you to decide to do it, but I'm pretty sure that legally it's quite straightforward.
https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/trusts-estates/can-a-family-owned-property-be-sold-without-one-members-consent-1641374.html (https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/trusts-estates/can-a-family-owned-property-be-sold-without-one-members-consent-1641374.html)
I bought a house like this last fall, one of several heirs went to the court and the court forced a sale.
I dread my mom’s passing. Mainly because I absolutely adore her, but secondarily because she and my (now-deceased) father made me and my two siblings co-executors and, to make matters worse, co-owners on a transfer on death deed for their house. And one of my sisters has resided in said house for > 30 years, and will be very tough to dislodge, despite being completely incapable of caring for said house. She hasn’t even done her own laundry in > 30 years. (Can you imagine having your 83-year-old mother doing your laundry?) Reading these stories doesn’t make me feel better.It may be tough for you to decide to do it, but I'm pretty sure that legally it's quite straightforward.
https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/trusts-estates/can-a-family-owned-property-be-sold-without-one-members-consent-1641374.html (https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/trusts-estates/can-a-family-owned-property-be-sold-without-one-members-consent-1641374.html)
I bought a house like this last fall, one of several heirs went to the court and the court forced a sale.
So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.
So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.
While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!
I have heard the statistic that large pots of inherited wealth dissipate after just a few generations, but I don't believe inheritance tax is the sole controller of that.
Other factors are
1) inheritors spread the wealth over many people, reducing assets per capita
2) inheritors are not as motivated to coddle the assets as were the originators of the wealth—they just wanna spend and enhance their lifestyle
3) inheritors are not skilled at preserving and growing the assets as were the originators
4) inflation over generations
We have, in my family, an instance of multi generational wealth that started withgrandparents, blue collar people, who worked, invested, and had company stock that did well. Their only child is cheap as hell and has every dime they ever left him. His child,an only,child, is due to inherit millions. I doubt she has any idea how much is there.
She is a good kid but I will bet those assets die with her. The preservation of the assets is causing her dad anxiety. But you know, that is worry of his own making. He should not expect to exert control from the grave.
I look at the huge death tax on the aristocracy in England and am sad about the toll it takes on great old ancient houses. So many end up in the National Trust because families cannot afford to keep them. After you’ve sold off acres of farm land and the paintings and fine furniture to pay taxes, there isnt much else you can do to stave off jettisoning the house.
So yeah, death taxes at a high rate is a philosophy consistent with our populist government and generally I am ok with it, but there are downsides to everything and taxation is not the panacea to solve all things.
are you referring to the "populist government" that doubled the estate tax exemption in 2017? That "populist government"?
It's easy to say that inheritance money should be taxed. After all, we always tax money every time it changes hands. So why should an inheritance be any different? However...
How does that work with business ownership that is inherited? To pay the tax, would the inheritor have to sell partial ownership of the company or potentially liquidate it entirely? There's probably a simple answer that isn't coming to mind.
Sorry, not trying to make this political. I'm just curious how to approach that counter-argument.
So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.
Hurray! My father just sold his house!
His entire estate is to be divided equally among us. I actually believe that my sisters and I would have been able to sell the house and split the proceeds completely amicably, but what a PITA, especially since each of lives in a jurisdiction with a different legal system.
The average home in my country now costs 8x the average income. Tax-free gifting of large sums of money certainly plays a part in this. Homes are scarce but the prices can only go up so much. At some point no one can afford homes anymore and prices will fall. Tax-free giving distorts this process of supply and demand.Can you elaborate on why there is such a housing shortage? I don't know off the top of my head what part of Europe you're from, but for that kind of money, I'd expect there to be all sorts of builders and developers building houses to meet the demand. What's stopping them?
Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.Wow, that sounds bad. I've heard the tenant rights laws are pretty lopsided, but bad enough to drive landlords out of the market? I wonder how many other homeowners/potential landlords are in a similar position. I have a relative who has built up a portfolio of rental homes in the midwest, and even there, with laws that aren't as bad as San Francisco, they've told me stories of the troubles a bad tenant can cause, even in a case of simple non-payment. Some renters know the legal system inside and out, and have no qualms about squeezing as much free housing as they can out of landlords.
And lose out on all those gains that are going to continue to happen?Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.Wow, that sounds bad. I've heard the tenant rights laws are pretty lopsided, but bad enough to drive landlords out of the market? I wonder how many other homeowners/potential landlords are in a similar position. I have a relative who has built up a portfolio of rental homes in the midwest, and even there, with laws that aren't as bad as San Francisco, they've told me stories of the troubles a bad tenant can cause, even in a case of simple non-payment. Some renters know the legal system inside and out, and have no qualms about squeezing as much free housing as they can out of landlords.
With property as expensive as it is there, why doesn't your friend simply sell the house?
Lol, the market could drop precipitously and she'd still be fine.And lose out on all those gains that are going to continue to happen?Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.Wow, that sounds bad. I've heard the tenant rights laws are pretty lopsided, but bad enough to drive landlords out of the market? I wonder how many other homeowners/potential landlords are in a similar position. I have a relative who has built up a portfolio of rental homes in the midwest, and even there, with laws that aren't as bad as San Francisco, they've told me stories of the troubles a bad tenant can cause, even in a case of simple non-payment. Some renters know the legal system inside and out, and have no qualms about squeezing as much free housing as they can out of landlords.
With property as expensive as it is there, why doesn't your friend simply sell the house?
Regarding the conversation about not leaving a house to more than one person, I thought I'd throw this out there.
My parents' eldrey neighbors sold their house to one of their two children. That child and her husband plan to live there someday. For now, the parents still live there and rent the house. The agreement is that they can stay as long as they want. I think they also agreed that when the dad passes away (which is almost certain given the health situations) if the child moves in with spouse, they get the master. IOW, they have really worked out the particulars.
It's apparently much more advantageous for all parties, financially. The kid has the tax benefits of a rental, and the parents' rent is far less than their ownership expenses were. (Thus making the overall expenses less, in total.)
And of course it removes the difficulty of both of their kids inheriting the house and having to agree on terms for getting rid of it or one of them buying it.
Overall, it seems like the best option *IF* all parties can be trusted and if very specific terms are hashed out in advance.
Wanted to get people's feedback what people thought of this. My brother is a single Dad (one kid launched, one kid entering college, still living there because going to community college). He owns a house (has a mortgage) and my mother and my sister moved in with him. My mother is paying for groceries, my sister other then help feed the dog, some chores does nothing to contribute. They are now both nagging my brother to get life insurance, so that if he died at the least they could pay his house off. He doesn't want to do it because according to insurance, the money has to come out of his account. Mom and sis say of course they are going to pay for the insurance, but then it's a pain to make sure they keep up with it.
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?
Wanted to get people's feedback what people thought of this. My brother is a single Dad (one kid launched, one kid entering college, still living there because going to community college). He owns a house (has a mortgage) and my mother and my sister moved in with him. My mother is paying for groceries, my sister other then help feed the dog, some chores does nothing to contribute. They are now both nagging my brother to get life insurance, so that if he died at the least they could pay his house off. He doesn't want to do it because according to insurance, the money has to come out of his account. Mom and sis say of course they are going to pay for the insurance, but then it's a pain to make sure they keep up with it.
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/
In addition to @Imma's excellent explanation, there are additional factors at play. The rise of airbnb takes property out of circulation. Ditto for the board-and-care industry. Sure, they're still providing housing for people who need it, but it ain't cheap.Excellent explanation and analysis. Bravo!
Next, stricter rent control shrinks available housing in several ways. Nothing new gets built, because it doesn't pencil out. My FIL owned a cute 10-unit apartment building in Berkeley. It was all studios and one-bedrooms, so it was relatively affordable. As the Landlord fees and paperwork became more onerous, he simply stopped renting out units. Once their longest-term tenant died, he sold the building. You know the new landlord jacked up the rental to cover their higher costs. Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.
Then there are investors who buy and hold. Lots of them scooped up houses during the crash and are just sitting on them. Most of those properties have doubled or more in value since, so when they do sell, they're not affordable any more either. Thing is, these buyers believe their properties will continue to appreciate at this rate, so not many of them are selling.
Finally: NIMBY-ism plays a role. In my area, developers are building expensive "Stack & Pack" housing near transit, in part because the state is telling them to. People get their knickers in a twist about how greedy the City is and about how much "Things Have Changed". Then they complain that their kids can't afford to live in the town they grew up in, boo-fucking-hoo. Funny, as these buildings come on line*, so far, every one of them is an improvement over what was there before and they fill up fast.
*Lots of projects were approved but not built during the Great Recession, because they couldn't get financing. It was comparatively cheap and certainly easier to just renew their approvals until the economy recovered, so that's what they did. Now they're building and people are screaming that it's too much all at once. If they paid just a bit of attention to local civics (not politics), they wouldn't be so fucking clueless.
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/
This.
My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America. My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids. I'm like that's not how that works.
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/
This.
My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America. My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids. I'm like that's not how that works.
That depends on the country they are moving to and the process used to get their approval to immigrate.
I've read stories that some Canadians **are** on the hook for providing for some immigrants they sponsor.
When you sponsor a relative to become a permanent resident of Canada, you must:
meet set income guidelines
agree in writing to give financial support to your relative and any other eligible relatives coming with them:
beginning on the date they become a permanent resident
for up to 20 years (depending on their age and how you’re related)
The person you sponsor must sign an agreement saying they will make the effort to support themselves. This includes sponsored dependent children 18 or older. Dependent children under 19 don’t have to sign this agreement.
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/
This.
My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America. My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids. I'm like that's not how that works.
That depends on the country they are moving to and the process used to get their approval to immigrate.
I've read stories that some Canadians **are** on the hook for providing for some immigrants they sponsor.
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/the problem is I'm not going to let my mother and or sister become homeless. I don't think I could live with myself. That said, they are not really taking responsibility for their lives. For one they both smoke and refuse to quit. They both don't take care of their health in other ways. I know I couldn't accept my sister being on the streets, but I know I would also feel resentment because they are not doing what they need to do to be healthy, responsible adults. There is this thing called depression. Also anxiety. They both have something going on where regular life seems to overwhelm them. The only good thing was after my brother died, my mother lost around 30 pounds because she wasn't eating as much (she and my brother lived together and they would have meals together). It was actually healthy for her to lose weight but she needs to also take care of herself. I don't really understand them. I work full time, have my two kids more than half time, also work on my house, have friends and hobbies, but they can't seem to get anything done (mother moved in September; still hasn't unpacked or gone through 90% of stuff she moved). I don't know how they organize their time but its seems -disorganized. My brother and also niece live pretty structured lives because they either work full time, or both are in school and work. But my sister and Mom are on their own orbits.
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/the problem is I'm not going to let my mother and or sister become homeless. I don't think I could live with myself. That said, they are not really taking responsibility for their lives. For one they both smoke and refuse to quit. They both don't take care of their health in other ways. I know I couldn't accept my sister being on the streets, but I know I would also feel resentment because they are not doing what they need to do to be healthy, responsible adults. There is this thing called depression. Also anxiety. They both have something going on where regular life seems to overwhelm them. The only good thing was after my brother died, my mother lost around 30 pounds because she wasn't eating as much (she and my brother lived together and they would have meals together). It was actually healthy for her to lose weight but she needs to also take care of herself. I don't really understand them. I work full time, have my two kids more than half time, also work on my house, have friends and hobbies, but they can't seem to get anything done (mother moved in September; still hasn't unpacked or gone through 90% of stuff she moved). I don't know how they organize their time but its seems -disorganized. My brother and also niece live pretty structured lives because they either work full time, or both are in school and work. But my sister and Mom are on their own orbits.
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/the problem is I'm not going to let my mother and or sister become homeless. I don't think I could live with myself. That said, they are not really taking responsibility for their lives. For one they both smoke and refuse to quit. They both don't take care of their health in other ways. I know I couldn't accept my sister being on the streets, but I know I would also feel resentment because they are not doing what they need to do to be healthy, responsible adults. There is this thing called depression. Also anxiety. They both have something going on where regular life seems to overwhelm them. The only good thing was after my brother died, my mother lost around 30 pounds because she wasn't eating as much (she and my brother lived together and they would have meals together). It was actually healthy for her to lose weight but she needs to also take care of herself. I don't really understand them. I work full time, have my two kids more than half time, also work on my house, have friends and hobbies, but they can't seem to get anything done (mother moved in September; still hasn't unpacked or gone through 90% of stuff she moved). I don't know how they organize their time but its seems -disorganized. My brother and also niece live pretty structured lives because they either work full time, or both are in school and work. But my sister and Mom are on their own orbits.
It seems like you need to start an "Are you an enabler?" thread. :(
Wanted to get people's feedback what people thought of this. My brother is a single Dad (one kid launched, one kid entering college, still living there because going to community college). He owns a house (has a mortgage) and my mother and my sister moved in with him. My mother is paying for groceries, my sister other then help feed the dog, some chores does nothing to contribute. They are now both nagging my brother to get life insurance, so that if he died at the least they could pay his house off. He doesn't want to do it because according to insurance, the money has to come out of his account. Mom and sis say of course they are going to pay for the insurance, but then it's a pain to make sure they keep up with it.
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?
You can't want anything more for someone than they want it themselves. And that includes them not being homeless.
The way I've heard it is "you can't care about someone else's problems more than they do"
Absolutely correct. This includes things using the sponsor's income when applying for student loans.Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/
This.
My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America. My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids. I'm like that's not how that works.
That depends on the country they are moving to and the process used to get their approval to immigrate.
I've read stories that some Canadians **are** on the hook for providing for some immigrants they sponsor.
Ah this makes me sad, remembering some of what you've been through there.You can't want anything more for someone than they want it themselves. And that includes them not being homeless.
I think I may have to stencil that across my ass. Particularly since my darling daughter prefers homelessness over an honest life.
You can't want anything more for someone than they want it themselves. And that includes them not being homeless.
I think I may have to stencil that across my ass. Particularly since my darling daughter prefers homelessness over an honest life.
Or, more pithily:The way I've heard it is "you can't care about someone else's problems more than they do"
More accurately, "Don't care about someone else's problems more than they do."
Or, more pithily:The way I've heard it is "you can't care about someone else's problems more than they do"
More accurately, "Don't care about someone else's problems more than they do."
Not my circus. Not my monkeys.
But if it is only houses then essentially we would have to kick her out or just give up a huge chunk of our inheritance.
If you could move past the financial inequality, you might avoid a whole lot of stress by getting your mother to leave the house FreeloadingSis is in to her, as her share of the estate, and the remainder to be divided between you and other sister.
That way, you would not be responsible for paying taxes or upkeep. It becomes FreeloadingSis's responsibility and hers alone. She's already received quite a bit of her 'inheritance' in advance over the years (this assumes you are giving us the complete story and she hasn't been an unpaid servant for your mother for all this time).
It saves you from possible years of trying to 1)get her out while she further runs down the place 2)have her buy you out, or 3)evict her.
exactly.If you could move past the financial inequality, you might avoid a whole lot of stress by getting your mother to leave the house FreeloadingSis is in to her, as her share of the estate, and the remainder to be divided between you and other sister.
That way, you would not be responsible for paying taxes or upkeep. It becomes FreeloadingSis's responsibility and hers alone. She's already received quite a bit of her 'inheritance' in advance over the years (this assumes you are giving us the complete story and she hasn't been an unpaid servant for your mother for all this time).
It saves you from possible years of trying to 1)get her out while she further runs down the place 2)have her buy you out, or 3)evict her.
This was my first thought, too. It is what I would probably do.
Also consider that if she is letting the place go to hell, if you decide to get her out and then sell, you’ll be in the position of having to fix it up before putting it on the market. More stress and more money spent.
This family inheritance story has just come to my attention:I'm confused. Who is the "Father" here? The Stepdad or the Scientist? Was this discovery about the Scientist made posthumously?
My Father has a Half-Sister, who was at one time married to a Scientist. This Scientist was very charming and famous, and even in a government advisory body of high standing. The couple had 3 children together and was very well off. They got divorced, because the Scientist was sleeping around (well, not really around, he took the ladies home to the marital bed). The children always blamed the divorce on their Mother, and even though they lived with her, their relationship never recovered. There was a Stepfather who helped raise them, and loved them, but they rejected him, harshly. When the Father died, all 3 children inherited a lovely amount.
My Father's Sister has always leaned towards that half-side of the family, mainly because that's where the money is. To her, somehow, 'wealth' equals 'better'.
It now turns out that that wealth was gathered through bribes! Large corporations at the time paid the Scientist large sums to influence the government advisory body! I wonder how that inheritance feels now....
A Coworker told a story at lunch on Friday which made me think of this thread so here goes:
He is a lawyer and was approached by a neighbour how one would go about refusing an inheritance. Said neighbour has 2 sister. One of them was doing very well career-wise and financially (or so it seemed), but lost her job about 4 months ago when her company downsized. At the same time their mother required more care at home, as she fell seriously ill. The sister offered to move in with her to assist in taking care of her while figuring out her next career moves. The mother got gradually worse and in the final month was hospitalized and then died about 2 weeks ago. As the mother lived quite far away and it all happened quite fast, the neighbour and the 2nd sister only visited their mother when she was hospitalized, so did not actually witness their sister and mother living together.
When they saw their mothers house for the first time since sister 1 moved in, they realized why she hadn't asked them to come by sooner. It turned out that sister 1 had had a meltdown because of her jobloss and used their mothers credit cards / name to go on a shopping spree. The whole house was full of delivery boxes. Clothes, electronics, appliances, collectibles, anything that could be bought online. Most of the packages still unopened. And a new BMW in the driveway. All of it bought in the name of the mother. Luckily they were able to revoke the contracts on some of the big ticket items such as the car, but they weren't able to return most of the crap she had bought online as they couldn't prove that it was in fact not mom who had bought all this stuff. So now they're left with a bunch of stuff no one needs and huge credit card debt, all in a time which is already difficult enough.
What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
The estate owns the debt under most circumstances, but there are exceptions. Anyone else whose name is on the credit card is still on the hook. Same goes for debt where there's a co-signer, or for a lease where the parties are jointly and severally responsible for the rent payments.
In a community property state, the surviving spouse is often on the hook for debt run up during the marriage, even if the debt or credit card is in the deceased spouse's name.
What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
They can go after the estate, but if there's no estate there's no recourse. However, that does not prevent shady debt collectors from calling next-of-kin and claiming they're responsible to pay the deceased's debts.
My father and grandfather and my uncles always said that nothing's really free, there's always a catch.What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
They can go after the estate, but if there's no estate there's no recourse. However, that does not prevent shady debt collectors from calling next-of-kin and claiming they're responsible to pay the deceased's debts.
Watching my dad go through this with my grandparents' estate when I was 17 is probably the biggest factor in my not even applying for a credit card until I was well into my twenties. Not even for the free pizza/t-shirt/frisbee/whatever that was being offered for applications on my university campus.
Luckily, my dad knew what was up and told them to go after the (non-existent) estate.
My father and grandfather and my uncles always said that nothing's really free, there's always a catch.What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
They can go after the estate, but if there's no estate there's no recourse. However, that does not prevent shady debt collectors from calling next-of-kin and claiming they're responsible to pay the deceased's debts.
Watching my dad go through this with my grandparents' estate when I was 17 is probably the biggest factor in my not even applying for a credit card until I was well into my twenties. Not even for the free pizza/t-shirt/frisbee/whatever that was being offered for applications on my university campus.
Luckily, my dad knew what was up and told them to go after the (non-existent) estate.
When I went to college, I wouldn't sign up for CC offers with a "free" catch with a $X application fee. Then there was Discover, offering zero freebies, but also $0 application fee. My uncle told me to sign up for Discover to start building my credit. Then there was an Amex Blue student card which I opened, similar T&Cs. I still have those two cards open, 22 years later, I don't use them, but they are my oldest and help keep credit score in the 800s.
My father and grandfather and my uncles always said that nothing's really free, there's always a catch.What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
They can go after the estate, but if there's no estate there's no recourse. However, that does not prevent shady debt collectors from calling next-of-kin and claiming they're responsible to pay the deceased's debts.
Watching my dad go through this with my grandparents' estate when I was 17 is probably the biggest factor in my not even applying for a credit card until I was well into my twenties. Not even for the free pizza/t-shirt/frisbee/whatever that was being offered for applications on my university campus.
Luckily, my dad knew what was up and told them to go after the (non-existent) estate.
When I went to college, I wouldn't sign up for CC offers with a "free" catch with a $X application fee. Then there was Discover, offering zero freebies, but also $0 application fee. My uncle told me to sign up for Discover to start building my credit. Then there was an Amex Blue student card which I opened, similar T&Cs. I still have those two cards open, 22 years later, I don't use them, but they are my oldest and help keep credit score in the 800s.
"They would set booths up right outside the campus bookstore on move-in day and try to get people to sign up."
Yes, that was a big difference from college up until the early '80's... I can't recall seeing any CC companies during my days at good old State. My only CC was my fathers Exxon card so I could get home and hope dear old Dad had a little money for soney in his wallet! I hated being a poor college student, but as I drove off to the real world after graduation my father told me "...At least $0 gets posted in black ink on the ledger, everything below $0 is written in red."
"They would set booths up right outside the campus bookstore on move-in day and try to get people to sign up."
Yes, that was a big difference from college up until the early '80's... I can't recall seeing any CC companies during my days at good old State. My only CC was my fathers Exxon card so I could get home and hope dear old Dad had a little money for soney in his wallet! I hated being a poor college student, but as I drove off to the real world after graduation my father told me "...At least $0 gets posted in black ink on the ledger, everything below $0 is written in red."
I remember having a very hard time getting a general credit card in the mid 80s. I was a working person and I saved $500 a month which at the time was a lot of money. The only reason I wanted a credit card was because I wanted to build up my credit rating so that I could get a mortgage.
As it turns out I got a mortgage anyways so it didn’t really matter, and somewhere around that same time I did get my first general credit card. I had had a storeCredit card for JC Penney company for some years.
"They would set booths up right outside the campus bookstore on move-in day and try to get people to sign up."
Yes, that was a big difference from college up until the early '80's... I can't recall seeing any CC companies during my days at good old State. My only CC was my fathers Exxon card so I could get home and hope dear old Dad had a little money for soney in his wallet! I hated being a poor college student, but as I drove off to the real world after graduation my father told me "...At least $0 gets posted in black ink on the ledger, everything below $0 is written in red."
I remember having a very hard time getting a general credit card in the mid 80s. I was a working person and I saved $500 a month which at the time was a lot of money. The only reason I wanted a credit card was because I wanted to build up my credit rating so that I could get a mortgage.
As it turns out I got a mortgage anyways so it didn’t really matter, and somewhere around that same time I did get my first general credit card. I had had a storeCredit card for JC Penney company for some years.
We were dirt poor in the 80s. I had a gas credit card for awhile from when I was in college. Rarely used it because we only had one car and didn't drive much and couldn't take on debt, the finances were too shaky. It lapsed and we didn't renew it. Needed a credit card for business use though (we had our own company and had to travel overnight on occasion) but we couldn't get one. Our income was too low. A local bank let us set up a $300 credit card with a $300 deposit we couldn't access for a year. But that was enough to handle a few nights out of town on business, for which we knew we would be paid. That's what it took for us to establish credit again with an income that was about 1/3rd median family income.
I was a sophomore in college and got traveler's cheques for a road trip to Dallas (about five hours north of where I was living at the time). My friends all told me I was weird. I don't think I've gotten any since then.
I have traveled with a letter of credit, which I presented at banks in the foreign country. They would issue the money, perform the currency conversion, and annotate the letter with a deduction and running tally of how much I had left. I don't know how they obtained their share from the escrow account represented by the letter. It felt stately and impressive, as if for those moments I was a tiny but suddenly mature nexus in a world-spanning spiderweb of financieros, rather than a barely-post-hippie clattering around eating a lot of cheap delicious fish and fruit.
My father and grandfather and my uncles always said that nothing's really free, there's always a catch.What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
They can go after the estate, but if there's no estate there's no recourse. However, that does not prevent shady debt collectors from calling next-of-kin and claiming they're responsible to pay the deceased's debts.
Watching my dad go through this with my grandparents' estate when I was 17 is probably the biggest factor in my not even applying for a credit card until I was well into my twenties. Not even for the free pizza/t-shirt/frisbee/whatever that was being offered for applications on my university campus.
Luckily, my dad knew what was up and told them to go after the (non-existent) estate.
When I went to college, I wouldn't sign up for CC offers with a "free" catch with a $X application fee. Then there was Discover, offering zero freebies, but also $0 application fee. My uncle told me to sign up for Discover to start building my credit. Then there was an Amex Blue student card which I opened, similar T&Cs. I still have those two cards open, 22 years later, I don't use them, but they are my oldest and help keep credit score in the 800s.
I don't recall any of these cards having an application fee, but then again I didn't listen to their spiel either. They would set booths up right outside the campus bookstore on move-in day and try to get people to sign up. I'm not sure if they had some way of getting an immediate approval so that you could take your brand new card into the bookstore and buy books with it or not. I knew plenty of people who fell for it and racked up thousands in debt (and another who managed to put nearly 4 years of college tuition and books on CCs before filing bankruptcy three weeks after graduation).
I have traveled with a letter of credit, which I presented at banks in the foreign country. They would issue the money, perform the currency conversion, and annotate the letter with a deduction and running tally of how much I had left. I don't know how they obtained their share from the escrow account represented by the letter. It felt stately and impressive, as if for those moments I was a tiny but suddenly mature nexus in a world-spanning spiderweb of financieros, rather than a barely-post-hippie clattering around eating a lot of cheap delicious fish and fruit.
I have traveled with a letter of credit, which I presented at banks in the foreign country. They would issue the money, perform the currency conversion, and annotate the letter with a deduction and running tally of how much I had left. I don't know how they obtained their share from the escrow account represented by the letter. It felt stately and impressive, as if for those moments I was a tiny but suddenly mature nexus in a world-spanning spiderweb of financieros, rather than a barely-post-hippie clattering around eating a lot of cheap delicious fish and fruit.
@fredbear , this just sounds so completely badass. I suppose it's what the wealthy did back when being wealthy meant you basically lived in a different world from everyone else.
I guess this thread will have an uptick of Inheritance Drama stories starting in about 3 to 6 months.
I'm trying to practice "see the bright side in everything" and gallows humor. Might as well be efficient.
I guess this thread will have an uptick of Inheritance Drama stories starting in about 3 to 6 months.
I'm trying to practice "see the bright side in everything" and gallows humor. Might as well be efficient.
I've been thinking the same thing. There'll be a lot of greedy unemployed heirs & all kinds of resulting stories. ;)
I guess this thread will have an uptick of Inheritance Drama stories starting in about 3 to 6 months.And to think that I was hesitant to go there...thanks for opening the back door to the dark side of humor. We need all we can get these days, @SwordGuy!
I'm trying to practice "see the bright side in everything" and gallows humor. Might as well be efficient.
I actually wonder if a bunch of people aren't losing fortunes right now, meaning that the spike in deaths will include a bunch of families who thought grandpa was rich, but didn't realize he had it all in bank stocks and energy partnerships.
I actually wonder if a bunch of people aren't losing fortunes right now, meaning that the spike in deaths will include a bunch of families who thought grandpa was rich, but didn't realize he had it all in bank stocks and energy partnerships.
I guess if it's my time to go, being buried in compliments isn't the worst option.
Do we have the same BIL? Is yours overleveraged after a real-estate buying spree and will need cash to cover mortgage payments if all his tenants are out of work for the duration?I actually wonder if a bunch of people aren't losing fortunes right now, meaning that the spike in deaths will include a bunch of families who thought grandpa was rich, but didn't realize he had it all in bank stocks and energy partnerships.
I'm pretty sure my BIL was planning on making a request for another installment of the advance on his inheritance during his last minute trip down here last week. He picked a bad week to do it.
Do we have the same BIL? Is yours overleveraged after a real-estate buying spree and will need cash to cover mortgage payments if all his tenants are out of work for the duration?I actually wonder if a bunch of people aren't losing fortunes right now, meaning that the spike in deaths will include a bunch of families who thought grandpa was rich, but didn't realize he had it all in bank stocks and energy partnerships.
I'm pretty sure my BIL was planning on making a request for another installment of the advance on his inheritance during his last minute trip down here last week. He picked a bad week to do it.
What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
The estate is absolutely liable for cerdit card debt, in the sense that the companies can come for what they are owed before any inheritance is paid out. If someone told you differently, they were misinformed.
But heirs are not responsible for the debt. If someone owes $40,000 and the estate is only worth $30,000, the companies eat that extra $10,000. They can't force someone to pay for debt taken out by someone else, unless that someone legally agreed to be responsible (co-signing, for example).
^^Looks like it's popcorn time! This is gonna be good.^^
My sister was not the executor, but she was a pain in the ass during the process and blew through her share and then some. I bet she wishes she had it now. I called my brother, the co-exec, and asked him what he thought about me paying her rent this month. He asked if I had lost my mind, which brought me back to my senses. I sent a few checks to others in need instead.^^Looks like it's popcorn time! This is gonna be good.^^
Indeed. In handling my parents' estate, let's just say a lot of "assumptions" that my sister made as executor didn't pan out and was a costly lesson.
This story-in progress is not so much a drama as a long slog...
A friend's MIL passed away about 4 years ago, leaving behind her only son, who was 71 at the time.
She owned a condo, but had been moved to the hospital, then 2 months of LTC (government subsidized) before passing. She had bank accounts, at least one of which was joint with her son.
My friend and her husband have always kept most of their finances separate, and she was working full time her whole life and never really looked beyond her own finances, and even then rarely. A "set it and forget it' sort of person.
Well, her husband has onset of alzheimers and last year she discovered that he had not done their taxes for three years. He would start, need or forget something, and then was too embarassed to tell her or proceed. Okay then. She hired an accountant and paid the penalties and is now back to current.
One outstanding item is the MIL's condo that her husband inherited. They had been paying the HOA, taxes , utilties and other fees each month, and had their two grown daughters living there full time. Now that one daughter is gone to a job elsewhere, and one is moving in the next year, they want to have funds to maintain their own home and set aside long term care money for her husband.
The apartment's annual costs were too much to comfortably handle on their income, as my friend is retired now. They need a large sum of money in the next few years. The condo is in her husband's control and he has quickly declining health. I suggested that she get it ready and sell it, splitting proceeds with the kids if she wants, but that selling it before her husband passes would be a lot less stressful (and faster at a difficult time).
Guess what? It turns out that her husband never executed the MIL's will. That means that it needs to still go to probate, to assign an executor and allow transfer of title of the condo to him to inherit so they can sell it. But she needs to somehow find the information to submit for probate and only has MIL's SSN, and maybe a death certificate. She looked and looked and finally found a handwritten will that was properly witnessed, so the paralegal says it looks acceptable. MIL moved from Germany at retirement and only collected a foreign pension, so there is limited information on her, almost all her documents are in German, my friend does not speak German. She needs to find more identity type documents and try to locate accounts, etc.
She also needs to file a final tax return for MIL, because DH wasn't filing anyone's taxes.
I think this partly explains why DH just kept paying all the bills for the condo as they came in, did not want to discuss the condo, etc. -->he knew he needed to do a lot of legal and paperwork, but did not know how to get started, was embarassed and did not tell my friend. DH is also a bit of a hoarder and reluctant to go through anything to donate / pare down of MIL's.
Such a mess. Hopefully my friend can get assigned as executor in her husband's place, and the courts don't assign someone independent.. and that she finds some of the missing records, and finds someone who reads German to help her... during Covid.
@Goldielocks, were the daughters paying rent? Honestly, I wouldn't even try to resolve it before this pandemic ends.
It's waited this long, it can wait a little longer. She should prioritize getting her husband's POA, Advance Directive, etc. together first. Then she can tackle the estate. Whatever it's going to be has already happened, rushing now isn't likely to change much.
and that she finds some of the missing records, and finds someone who reads German to help her... during Covid.
and that she finds some of the missing records, and finds someone who reads German to help her... during Covid.
I'm based in Germany and know a number of German -> English freelance translators. You could DM me and I could maybe connect them with someone.
and that she finds some of the missing records, and finds someone who reads German to help her... during Covid.
I'm based in Germany and know a number of German -> English freelance translators. You could DM me and I could maybe connect them with someone.
Could a video chat or phone based option be realistic? As long as the person being read to can hear well or read lips, and the person on the other end can see the document, is it vital for the person doing the reading to be in the same room?
I know a few german speaking people in my area, too. I think she wants to try this with her husband's (diminishing) help, and has a lot of privacy needs and feels to be worked through first.and that she finds some of the missing records, and finds someone who reads German to help her... during Covid.
I'm based in Germany and know a number of German -> English freelance translators. You could DM me and I could maybe connect them with someone.
Could a video chat or phone based option be realistic? As long as the person being read to can hear well or read lips, and the person on the other end can see the document, is it vital for the person doing the reading to be in the same room?
Lol. I'm a dark/gallows humor fan. I also have plenty of popcorn...and patience, though I suspect there won't be much need to draw on the latter...
I mentioned to my BiL that I wanted another hobby, was considering golf. He suggested waiting for the wave of estate sales that are coming so I can pick up some golf clubs, used and inexpensive.
So if I followed that story correctly, Grandma died alone during a pandemic and having done nothing to help with patient care or funeral planning, DH's Uncle contacted the funeral home to ask for a refund on his mother's prepaid funeral package?
Wow. Just wow.
We started decluttering BEFORE COVID, and we have a pile...haven't donated.I mentioned to my BiL that I wanted another hobby, was considering golf. He suggested waiting for the wave of estate sales that are coming so I can pick up some golf clubs, used and inexpensive.
Or the decluttering. Seriously, I keep hearing that thrift stores are overwhelmed.
So if I followed that story correctly, Grandma died alone during a pandemic and having done nothing to help with patient care or funeral planning, DH's Uncle contacted the funeral home to ask for a refund on his mother's prepaid funeral package?
Wow. Just wow.
Correct!
It would seem to me that the funeral home would have to release the funds to the executor/estate, not to individuals who claim some right to them based on familial relationships. No? If, for example, the brother was excluded from the will, he wouldn't be entitled to anything. So there is no way the funeral home can determine who gets a piece, which would mean the money goes to the estate.
That's how it works in Canada...Funny, I was my parent's co-executor and co-trustee. It never even occurred to us to ask if there was any money left over. Too late now, but I wonder if this really happens often?
It would seem to me that the funeral home would have to release the funds to the executor/estate, not to individuals who claim some right to them based on familial relationships. No? If, for example, the brother was excluded from the will, he wouldn't be entitled to anything. So there is no way the funeral home can determine who gets a piece, which would mean the money goes to the estate.That's how it works in Canada...Funny, I was my parent's co-executor and co-trustee. It never even occurred to us to ask if there was any money left over. Too late now, but I wonder if this really happens often?
My brother and I have now had to work through lists of telephone numbers and do the "I'm ringing with bad news, I'm afraid, [my relative] has died" 4 different times.
It never gets easier on that end of things either.
Nope. I'm a boomer and my much older cousin announced her mother's (my aunt's) death via a mass email.My brother and I have now had to work through lists of telephone numbers and do the "I'm ringing with bad news, I'm afraid, [my relative] has died" 4 different times.
It never gets easier on that end of things either.
former player, as an etiquette note, I thank you for calling someone with this sad news vs. emailing or texting them.
Yes, I was the recipient of a text notifying me of a sudden death of someone in my extended circle. It was very jarring, and I felt it was kind of cold to deliver that news that way. However, I'm a Baby boomer and the person sending the message is a Millennial, so maybe it's a generational thing?
Yes, I was the recipient of a text notifying me of a sudden death of someone in my extended circle. It was very jarring, and I felt it was kind of cold to deliver that news that way. However, I'm a Baby boomer and the person sending the message is a Millennial, so maybe it's a generational thing?
My brother and I have now had to work through lists of telephone numbers and do the "I'm ringing with bad news, I'm afraid, [my relative] has died" 4 different times.
It never gets easier on that end of things either.
former player, as an etiquette note, I thank you for calling someone with this sad news vs. emailing or texting them.
Yes, I was the recipient of a text notifying me of a sudden death of someone in my extended circle. It was very jarring, and I felt it was kind of cold to deliver that news that way. However, I'm a Baby boomer and the person sending the message is a Millennial, so maybe it's a generational thing?
It would seem to me that the funeral home would have to release the funds to the executor/estate, not to individuals who claim some right to them based on familial relationships. No? If, for example, the brother was excluded from the will, he wouldn't be entitled to anything. So there is no way the funeral home can determine who gets a piece, which would mean the money goes to the estate.That's how it works in Canada...Funny, I was my parent's co-executor and co-trustee. It never even occurred to us to ask if there was any money left over. Too late now, but I wonder if this really happens often?
It happened to my grandma's friend, her nephews hadn't even informed her friends. The friend lived two hours away, when she no longer picked up the phone and letters weren't answered, my grandparents drove over and asked the neighbours if they knew if she had maybe moved to a nursing home. Instead they heard she was dead and her flat was cleared out the same week and sold soon after.
It happened to my grandma's friend, her nephews hadn't even informed her friends. The friend lived two hours away, when she no longer picked up the phone and letters weren't answered, my grandparents drove over and asked the neighbours if they knew if she had maybe moved to a nursing home. Instead they heard she was dead and her flat was cleared out the same week and sold soon after.
It happened to my DH, too. When his grandpa died, his (estranged) aunt did not tell any family (her one nephew, or the in-laws), let alone friends. We found out through a combination of no phone calls being answered / letters and a distant relative reading a courtesy obit posting on the online funeral home (that did the cremation). Grandpa was deteriorating for the last year, and we lived out of country that year, so we were never told of his illness or death. So sad. At least we knew (from him) that his wishes were to have no funeral, which is likely why there wasn't one.
My black sheep sister took mom's address book (see: control = power in her mind). We knew we were missing people, but did the best we could under the circumstances. It was worse when my dad died a year later, because he had moved out of state. Sigh.
Ugh. This reminds me of this gem that I'dMy black sheep sister took mom's address book (see: control = power in her mind). We knew we were missing people, but did the best we could under the circumstances. It was worse when my dad died a year later, because he had moved out of state. Sigh.
Mine stole the sign in book after the wake ended. She also managed to convince the cemetery staff to put the casket in the crypt, which they typically do after everyone leaves. All I know is that after the final service in the mausoleum, I decided to wait outside for her and her friends to have their final moments w/the casket, and then I could go in and have my final moments with my hubby and friends. At one point, she came outside to get something from her vehicle, I thought nothing of it at the time. Best I can tell is she wanted to include something from her cult (which my Mom was not a part of) either in or on top of the casket. Once they left, we went inside, and were shocked that everything was already completed, and the casket was gone!
The final act of control was the photo. The marker has the names of the deceased on opposite ends, with a profile photo of each person. Or if the family wants one photo as a couple, then that is placed in the middle. Mom specifically indicated that she wanted to be buried in the dress that she wore to my wedding, and I provided the funeral director w/a profile photo from the wedding to use on the marker. When the marker was put in place, the photo used was of my Mom & Dad, w/my Mom standing behind my Dad. So there are two photos of my Dad on the marker, and my Mom isn't even the featured subject of her own grave marker! On some level, this was a passive aggressive move towards Mom, b/c my sister hated her. I could have paid the $500 to change it, but I figured she'd just change it back, and I honestly no longer care. I've closed the door on my crazy family, and moved on.
@Dicey , sorry for making that hidden memory come back to the surface. Some people just plain suck. :(Funny, in a way I appreciated the reminder. Black Sheep Sister has managed to worm her way back into everyone else's lives to some degree. I'm not having it, for a variety of reasons, some worse than the story I just shared. Thank you for helping me remember that I'm not the asshole.
OK, maybe I'm wierd but -- why does everybody expect someone who just lost someone close to them to suck it up and make a gazillion phone calls to all the friends and relatives to tell them?
OK, maybe I'm wierd but -- why does everybody expect someone who just lost someone close to them to suck it up and make a gazillion phone calls to all the friends and relatives to tell them? There is no way I could have made it through a horrific process like that. My mom was ailing and everybody knew. No one seemed offended by the mass email I sent out when she finally passed. I was able to compose it over a couple of days and get input from my siblings. Many people responded with special memories of my mom -- some decided to cc: everybody on those messages so we all got to know her/her history a little better.Honestly, we would have been happy with ONE call to ONE person on our side of the family, or ONE mass email, or ONE text. Anything, at all.
I personally HATE getting unanticipated phone calls -- an email I can decide when I open, when and how I deal with the contents.
OK, maybe I'm wierd but -- why does everybody expect someone who just lost someone close to them to suck it up and make a gazillion phone calls to all the friends and relatives to tell them? There is no way I could have made it through a horrific process like that. My mom was ailing and everybody knew. No one seemed offended by the mass email I sent out when she finally passed. I was able to compose it over a couple of days and get input from my siblings. Many people responded with special memories of my mom -- some decided to cc: everybody on those messages so we all got to know her/her history a little better.
I personally HATE getting unanticipated phone calls -- an email I can decide when I open, when and how I deal with the contents.
Yep, sounds like you’re going to have to take the stronger approach that others have suggested above. As someone else mentioned, you have to keep in mind it’s not your actions that are causing a (potential) rift with Sister1, it’s her actions that are putting you in this predicament.
Yep, sounds like you’re going to have to take the stronger approach that others have suggested above. As someone else mentioned, you have to keep in mind it’s not your actions that are causing a (potential) rift with Sister1, it’s her actions that are putting you in this predicament.
As someone who finally had to hire an attorney to force my sister to do her duty as executor, the bolded is what you have to keep at the forefront of your mind.
I don't. This is something that other people can help with, like when they say "oh my god, I'm so sorry, please let me know if there's anything I can do" you say "actually, can I give you a list of people to notify, I'm completely wrecked and I just can't talk to people right now." When my friend's wife was killed in an accident he asked me if I would inform our friend group because he was in shock and couldn't deal with it. I was happy to be able to help him in some small way. (I did do a mass electronic message in that case since most of them had never met her, only him, since she was not involved in our hobby group, and it didn't seem like it would really upset anyone.)
My mother-in-law has been asking us to set up an appointment with a lawyer to make a proper will, etc, so we're doing that on 8/3.
As part of the process, they sent a planning form to be filled in before the meeting, if possible. Now, my MIL is currently worth around $240k, including her condo (we guesstimate around $100k for that).
One question asked if she had any specific bequests. She has three distant relatives in her home country that are now in their twenties, and she has never met them. I doubt they even know she exists. We asked how much she'd like to leave them, and she says $30k! A few minutes later we talked her down to $1,000 each. Why $30k? It's a cultural thing. She wants to be remembered as the rich American who dropped a ton of money in their laps, as if they'd care where it came from :)
I'm looking forward to getting everything documented. There's one family member who will have issues with what she wants, for sure. That person was informally adopted back in the '60s, and legally, no paperwork was ever filed. I guess if they don't like it, there's not much recourse. No one else gets along with them, and the rest of my wife's family has decided that once MIL goes, they have no desire to interact with the toxic family member ever again.
We encourage MIL to enjoy what she has and spend what she likes. Her monthly SS income is enough to keep her going in comfort, and she's in her nineties, so she might as well do what she likes at this point.
So, no drama yet, but I see it coming on the horizon. Time to get everything written down and finalized.
One should always give in percentages, not absolute dollars. Otherwise, as funds get spent down, those specific dollar bequests can eat up the entire estate, leaving nothing for anyone else.
Wow! Something's better than nothing, I suppose, but it does leave one hanging. Where did the rest of his estate go?One should always give in percentages, not absolute dollars. Otherwise, as funds get spent down, those specific dollar bequests can eat up the entire estate, leaving nothing for anyone else.
And in rare cases, the opposite. My father was the only relative named in the will of his childless great uncle and received a specified amount... which ended up being around one half of one percent of his multi-million-dollar estate. We'll never know if that's exactly what he wanted or if he just never updated that part of his will for a few decades.
Wow! Something's better than nothing, I suppose, but it does leave one hanging. Where did the rest of his estate go?One should always give in percentages, not absolute dollars. Otherwise, as funds get spent down, those specific dollar bequests can eat up the entire estate, leaving nothing for anyone else.
And in rare cases, the opposite. My father was the only relative named in the will of his childless great uncle and received a specified amount... which ended up being around one half of one percent of his multi-million-dollar estate. We'll never know if that's exactly what he wanted or if he just never updated that part of his will for a few decades.
can't wait to close this trust and never speak to dis-owned ex sibling again.
Yeah, I have a sister that could be your sib's twin. Sadly, I let the rest of my siblings outvote me on something the black sheep sister vehemently swore she was entitled to. Pissed me off so much that after acquiescing on that point, I adamantly refused to be manipulated further. I also rewrote my own will. The pressure my sibs put on me is going to cost them in the long run, but even writing that sounds bitter. Uh, it made me re-think and revise my own beneficiary designations. Does that soundcan't wait to close this trust and never speak to dis-owned ex sibling again.
Hire an attorney to do the work of dealing with sibling. It's within your prerogative as executor.
Not only that, but send an invoice to said sibling for all the loans that haven't been paid back. Send copies of those you have documentation for to your other siblings. See what it would cost to take sibling to civil court to collect. If you're going to burn bridges on purpose, be sure to use napalm. :)
can't wait to close this trust and never speak to dis-owned ex sibling again.
Hire an attorney to do the work of dealing with sibling. It's within your perogative as executor.
Not only that, but send an invoice to said sibling for all the loans that haven't been paid back. Send copies of those you have documentation for to your other siblings. See what it would cost to take sibling to civil court to collect. If you're going to burn bridges on purpose, be sure to use napalm. :)
can't wait to close this trust and never speak to dis-owned ex sibling again.
Hire an attorney to do the work of dealing with sibling. It's within your perogative as executor.
Not only that, but send an invoice to said sibling for all the loans that haven't been paid back. Send copies of those you have documentation for to your other siblings. See what it would cost to take sibling to civil court to collect. If you're going to burn bridges on purpose, be sure to use napalm. :)
can't wait to close this trust and never speak to dis-owned ex sibling again.
Hire an attorney to do the work of dealing with sibling. It's within your perogative as executor.
Not only that, but send an invoice to said sibling for all the loans that haven't been paid back. Send copies of those you have documentation for to your other siblings. See what it would cost to take sibling to civil court to collect. If you're going to burn bridges on purpose, be sure to use napalm. :)
If documented, those loans are an asset of the estate. Handle them as such.
My brother has taken out and never repaid loans from my parents, but they are all documented and I have been instructed that they should be considered part of "his share" of any inheritance.
And I like the lawyer plan.
Yeah, I have a sister that could be your sib's twin. Sadly, I let the rest of my siblings outvote me on something the black sheep sister vehemently swore she was entitled to. Pissed me off so much that after acquiescing on that point, I adamantly refused to be manipulated further. I also rewrote my own will. The pressure my sibs put on me is going to cost them in the long run, but even writing that sounds bitter. Uh, it made me re-think and revise my own beneficiary designations. Does that soundbitterbetter?
Heh-heh, I know just what you mean...my parent's estate was significantly smaller than it might have been because of sister's constant draining of parental resources. She gambles. In the year before my mom died, she stole at least $11k in cash via fradulent CC use that I know of, in addition to manymanymany other things. The fact that she still got (and squandered) the biggest piece of the pie will never be forgotten.Yeah, I have a sister that could be your sib's twin. Sadly, I let the rest of my siblings outvote me on something the black sheep sister vehemently swore she was entitled to. Pissed me off so much that after acquiescing on that point, I adamantly refused to be manipulated further. I also rewrote my own will. The pressure my sibs put on me is going to cost them in the long run, but even writing that sounds bitter. Uh, it made me re-think and revise my own beneficiary designations. Does that soundbitterbetter?
@Dicey, just want to say to the bolded that it doesn't sound bitter. It sounds like a logical consequence.
After my special trustee duties of selling my parents house were finished, I had learned so much of how my sister mishandled things that I started revising my beneficiary designations beginning when I took my disbursement check to the bank. She has no idea how much gaining for herself is going to cost her in the end.
I am not sure how one can be successful at taking a sibling to court for “loans” that are not documented. I put loans in quotes because likely it was only a verbal agreement, and casual at that. If there is a promissory note, that is a different deal. Highly unlikely, tho.
Ask me how I know, ha ha.
Situation is playing out in DH’s family has very large amounts of money going to one of the siblings who promised to pay it back which never happened. No one in his family is going after that money because it is lost. This is a family that, at one time, did dormally loan money back-and-forth to each other. Family business. Parents lent money to son. Son lent money to parents. All documented with promissory notes stating interest rate. But that was way back when. Parental expectations relaxed with younger sibs.
I am not sure how one can be successful at taking a sibling to court for “loans” that are not documented. I put loans in quotes because likely it was only a verbal agreement, and casual at that. If there is a promissory note, that is a different deal. Highly unlikely, tho.
Ask me how I know, ha ha.
Situation is playing out in DH’s family has very large amounts of money going to one of the siblings who promised to pay it back which never happened. No one in his family is going after that money because it is lost. This is a family that, at one time, did dormally loan money back-and-forth to each other. Family business. Parents lent money to son. Son lent money to parents. All documented with promissory notes stating interest rate. But that was way back when. Parental expectations relaxed with younger sibs.
This is such a huge trust issue. My dad was VERY clear with all of us that one sibling had taken out loans from him and not paid them back. He told all of us that it was to come out of her share of the inheritance. Dad documented EVERYTHING so we of course found the payment schedule and my sibling was honest about how much/little was paid back.
@Dicey, that's just ...Yup. Wow.
wow.
What a piece of freakin' work.
I am not sure how one can be successful at taking a sibling to court for “loans” that are not documented. I put loans in quotes because likely it was only a verbal agreement, and casual at that. If there is a promissory note, that is a different deal. Highly unlikely, tho.
Ask me how I know, ha ha.
Situation is playing out in DH’s family has very large amounts of money going to one of the siblings who promised to pay it back which never happened. No one in his family is going after that money because it is lost. This is a family that, at one time, did dormally loan money back-and-forth to each other. Family business. Parents lent money to son. Son lent money to parents. All documented with promissory notes stating interest rate. But that was way back when. Parental expectations relaxed with younger sibs.
This is such a huge trust issue. My dad was VERY clear with all of us that one sibling had taken out loans from him and not paid them back. He told all of us that it was to come out of her share of the inheritance. Dad documented EVERYTHING so we of course found the payment schedule and my sibling was honest about how much/little was paid back.
It may vary by state, but I sold a property in early April and received the tax statement for that property in July (with the same request that I "forward it to the new owner")
The deed was recorded--in NC, it's a requirement for the buyer to gain access to the property--but they're still mailing the former owner the tax statement.
The deed was recorded--in NC, it's a requirement for the buyer to gain access to the property--but they're still mailing the former owner the tax statement.
The deed was recorded--in NC, it's a requirement for the buyer to gain access to the property--but they're still mailing the former owner the tax statement.
I live in NC and have never received a property tax bill for a house I had already sold. And I've sold several.
I think it may be your local county that's the problem here.
The deed was recorded--in NC, it's a requirement for the buyer to gain access to the property--but they're still mailing the former owner the tax statement.
I live in NC and have never received a property tax bill for a house I had already sold. And I've sold several.
I think it may be your local county that's the problem here.
You know, now that I think about it a bit more, I may be wrong.
There's an adjustment on the closing statement about the taxes. I just don't remember whether I pay and they credit me their share or they pay and I credit them my share.
I've sent a question to my closing attorney to ask him. Since I've got a $0 or $3,600 property tax bill coming up on the house I just sold and another $0 or $1,200 on the other one I just sold, it would be helpful to know for sure...
Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
I don't hear from her again until 2018. I get a FB request. She is living in a subsidized apartment and wants to use me as a job reference. Sure, why not. She actually is good at what she does. I don't hear from her again until this past Saturday. Seems the job is gone, rent is due, and she doesn't have the money for the title loan. I have not responded to the three texts, FB message, or the voicemail.
Yikes indeed.Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
This is so juicy that it almost needs its own ongoing thread. Wow. Just wow. You went above and beyond in multiple ways. Glad that you're not jumping on that sinking ship. Yikes.
Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
This is so juicy that it almost needs its own ongoing thread. Wow. Just wow. You went above and beyond in multiple ways. Glad that you're not jumping on that sinking ship. Yikes.
Ahhh...Eric Clapton."Nobody Knows You When You're Down And Out"Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
This is so juicy that it almost needs its own ongoing thread. Wow. Just wow. You went above and beyond in multiple ways. Glad that you're not jumping on that sinking ship. Yikes.
Once I lived the life of a millionaire,
Spent all my money, didn't have any care.
Took all my friends out for a mighty good time,
Bought bootleg liquor, champagne and wine.
Then I began to fall so low,
Lost all my good friends, had nowhere to go.
I get my hands on a dollar again,
I'll hang on to it 'til that old eagle grins.
Because nobody loves you
When you're down and out.
In your pocket, not one penny,
And as for friends... you don't have many.
When you get back on your feet again,
Everybody wants to be your long-lost friend.
I said it straight without any doubt,
Nobody knows you when you're down and out........
Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
This is so juicy that it almost needs its own ongoing thread. Wow. Just wow. You went above and beyond in multiple ways. Glad that you're not jumping on that sinking ship. Yikes.
Great song and absolutely not-applicable to the poster's situation. He was a great friend to that person. He went above and beyond. He also learned (or decided to use) the old adage that you don't help people more than they are willing to help themselves.
"Nobody Knows You When You're Down And Out"
Once I lived the life of a millionaire,
Spent all my money, didn't have any care.
Took all my friends out for a mighty good time,
Bought bootleg liquor, champagne and wine.
Then I began to fall so low,
Lost all my good friends, had nowhere to go.
I get my hands on a dollar again,
I'll hang on to it 'til that old eagle grins.
Because nobody loves you
When you're down and out.
In your pocket, not one penny,
And as for friends... you don't have many.
When you get back on your feet again,
Everybody wants to be your long-lost friend.
I said it straight without any doubt,
Nobody knows you when you're down and out........
Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
This is so juicy that it almost needs its own ongoing thread. Wow. Just wow. You went above and beyond in multiple ways. Glad that you're not jumping on that sinking ship. Yikes.
Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring.In Real Life parable of the drowning man (asking God for help while ignoring rescue truck, raft, helicopter).
...
You're nicer than me. People who unfriend me intentionally don't get re-friended. It's because I've noticed that letting people back into my life after they do things that ordinarily end the relationship guarantees they will continue to do relationship-ending things while expecting me to hold up my end of the friendship. No thanks to all that.
+1.I don't hear from her again until 2018. I get a FB request. She is living in a subsidized apartment and wants to use me as a job reference. Sure, why not. She actually is good at what she does. I don't hear from her again until this past Saturday. Seems the job is gone, rent is due, and she doesn't have the money for the title loan. I have not responded to the three texts, FB message, or the voicemail.
You're nicer than me. People who unfriend me intentionally don't get re-friended. It's because I've noticed that letting people back into my life after they do things that ordinarily end the relationship guarantees they will continue to do relationship-ending things while expecting me to hold up my end of the friendship. No thanks to all that.
If the request for aid came in any other way, I'd tell her that she should probably ask the lowlifes who helped her spend down her inheritance. Giving her a car, a free month's rent, and a sincere offer to help her with adult skills should have been more than enough. What idiots like this generally want is an enabler so that they can continue doing whatever thing got them in trouble. With some people it's booze or gambling; with this one it's random spending and failure to live within her means.
You're nicer than me. People who unfriend me intentionally don't get re-friended. It's because I've noticed that letting people back into my life after they do things that ordinarily end the relationship guarantees they will continue to do relationship-ending things while expecting me to hold up my end of the friendship. No thanks to all that.
This. I helped out a very good friend who fell on hard times years ago. Provided transportation when she decided to move cross country, gave her money, food and stored her stuff while she got on her feet. Long story short, after a couple of years and a ton of drama, ties were cut but reestablished a few years later. Then she cut ties again, this time unfriending me and not returning my calls. Now she is crying out to me wanting to reestablish contact, apologizing for cutting ties again. I just can't go there again, I just don't have the energy to deal with another round of drama. Especially when she ended the last appeal that if "I wait too long, she might be six feet under".
My best friend's sister's husband died of a heart attack in his sleep Sunday night. His family has called several times, not to check on their 10 year-old grandson, but to scream at the new widow about her choice to cremate him and to tell her to sign the title of his cars over to them. He apparently made decent enough money buying older cars, fixing them up, and reselling them. So, BFF's sister is currently holding the titles to 10 beaters in various stages of repair and a maybe rollback (she's not sure if he owned it outright or if he's the only one on the title). His dad was on his bank account and has likely already emptied the account and now they want the cars too. Unfortunately, the cars were being stored on his dad's land, so physically getting them may be a problem. This is going to end up being a case of a bunch of people fighting over next to nothing.
I’m not normally in favor of GoFundMes, but in this case I make an exception. Create one for her in the sum of the amount the grandfather took with an explanation why, and tell the husband’s family you’ll publicize it unless they return the money - and hand over the cars.I like the way you think, @Captain FIRE!
Ok, I’m guessing the person draining the account wouldn’t care that their family, friends and neighbors know, but it’d make me feel better!
Just a follow up. The funeral was this weekend. His father didn't show. "Too sick" to come. His brothers showed up halfway through and looked perturbed that they didn't wait more 30 minutes, after already starting 15 minutes late, in the blistering sun for them to get there. A GFM has been started, albeit without calling out his family. It turns out that she was never added to his bank account, so couldn't have accessed the money without going through probate anyway. The widow and her dad made a surprise "we were in the area" visit to his father and just happened to have a bunch of totes in their car and were able to gather up most of his tools before they could vanish. She has an appointment with SS this week to get the ball rolling on survivor's benefits, though they aren't sure that he has enough quarters on paper in the last three years to qualify as much of his car flipping was done unofficially. Luckily, their house is in her and her sister's name and he was never put on the deed.
No, wait, I think Sugaree meant the widow and her father got the tools from the FIL's place. i.e. the good guys got most of the tools. I had to read it twice to be sure and I very much hope I got it right.Just a follow up. The funeral was this weekend. His father didn't show. "Too sick" to come. His brothers showed up halfway through and looked perturbed that they didn't wait more 30 minutes, after already starting 15 minutes late, in the blistering sun for them to get there. A GFM has been started, albeit without calling out his family. It turns out that she was never added to his bank account, so couldn't have accessed the money without going through probate anyway. The widow and her dad made a surprise "we were in the area" visit to his father and just happened to have a bunch of totes in their car and were able to gather up most of his tools before they could vanish. She has an appointment with SS this week to get the ball rolling on survivor's benefits, though they aren't sure that he has enough quarters on paper in the last three years to qualify as much of his car flipping was done unofficially. Luckily, their house is in her and her sister's name and he was never put on the deed.
I would swear out a warrant for felony theft and burglary.
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Indeed this whole story has some odd details: name not on bank account, sister's name on house title instead of husband's.
It seems like there were ways this couple had opted to not join their legal affairs, which may well have been motivated by earlier family drama.
My brother and I were co-executors. We took no fees. My parent's will and trust were "thinly written" and for a while it looked like there was going to be a huge tax haircut. Bro and I did backflips, along with judicious use of professional help, to make sure that didn't happen. As a result, everyone got approximately twice as much as we were initially led to believe. Through it all, BlackSheepSister complained vehemently that we were taking too long. The estate is finally settled and her share is all gone. Zero gratitude from her. Did someone mention gambling?My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
That so wrong, all of it. Overcharging to that extent on fees? Tying compliance to access to your family member? I hope he gets some help, because he's going to be awfully miserable driving everyone away with that behavior. Addiction really is the pits.
My brother and I were co-executors. We took no fees. My parent's will and trust were "thinly written" and for a while it looked like there was going to be a huge tax haircut. Bro and I did backflips, along with judicious use of professional help, to make sure that didn't happen. As a result, everyone got approximately twice as much as we were initially led to believe. Through it all, BlackSheepSister complained vehemently that we were taking too long. The estate is finally settled and her share is all gone. Zero gratitude from her. Did someone mention gambling?My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
That so wrong, all of it. Overcharging to that extent on fees? Tying compliance to access to your family member? I hope he gets some help, because he's going to be awfully miserable driving everyone away with that behavior. Addiction really is the pits.
20 years ago Grandpa passed away and left everything to 80 year old Grandma (probably a million or so).
Grandma didn't know how to manage money so she co-mingled her funds somehow with her brother to invest. Her brother re-married and then died about 3 years later. He got swindled by his new wife's lawyer/financial advisor and made a new will on his deathbed and left everything to the new much younger wife and step-kids... including my grandma's money since they had joint accounts of some sort (don't know all the details)
My dad didn't know about the situation until after his uncle (her brother) passed away. They had a court battle and fought it pretty hard but the judge ruled in favor of the wife. My grandma was left with nothing but social security and a paid off house for the last 5 years of her life. She was still happy and thankful for what she had until the very end which is probably the best lesson of all, money is just a tool, not the purpose of life.
Other Lessons:
1. Lawyers/financial advisors can be snakes (not all, but shitty ones are out there and they don't announce themselves).
2. Manage your own damn money
3. Talk more openly about money with your trusted family members (had my dad known what was going on he would have been able to help her avoid the situation)
4. If you want to give money to family members or causes you care about, you should consider doing it BEFORE you die.. stuff can get messy once you're gone. My grandpa is probably rolling in his grave knowing that all of the money he saved his entire life ended up in the hands of people he never met or cared about and they proceeded to spend it on vacation houses, new cars and other shit he didn't care about.
5. Don't rely on an inheritance, make your own money, be financially independent
This all happened when I was a kid and I didn't learn about it until much later but looked at through the lens of FI I learned a lot from it...
20 years ago Grandpa passed away and left everything to 80 year old Grandma (probably a million or so).
Grandma didn't know how to manage money so she co-mingled her funds somehow with her brother to invest. Her brother re-married and then died about 3 years later. He got swindled by his new wife's lawyer/financial advisor and made a new will on his deathbed and left everything to the new much younger wife and step-kids... including my grandma's money since they had joint accounts of some sort (don't know all the details)
My dad didn't know about the situation until after his uncle (her brother) passed away. They had a court battle and fought it pretty hard but the judge ruled in favor of the wife. My grandma was left with nothing but social security and a paid off house for the last 5 years of her life. She was still happy and thankful for what she had until the very end which is probably the best lesson of all, money is just a tool, not the purpose of life.
Other Lessons:
1. Lawyers/financial advisors can be snakes (not all, but shitty ones are out there and they don't announce themselves).
2. Manage your own damn money
3. Talk more openly about money with your trusted family members (had my dad known what was going on he would have been able to help her avoid the situation)
4. If you want to give money to family members or causes you care about, you should consider doing it BEFORE you die.. stuff can get messy once you're gone. My grandpa is probably rolling in his grave knowing that all of the money he saved his entire life ended up in the hands of people he never met or cared about and they proceeded to spend it on vacation houses, new cars and other shit he didn't care about.
5. Don't rely on an inheritance, make your own money, be financially independent
This all happened when I was a kid and I didn't learn about it until much later but looked at through the lens of FI I learned a lot from it...
While this story obviously sucks, don't you think the grandma considered her brother to be a 'trusted family member'?
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.Wow, here it is max 5% of the estate value overall, (or 0.4% per year for on-going management), and often set to be less if the estate is fairly easy to handle / manage. 5% would likely involve a lot of paperwork and properties to arrange for sale.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings..
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Wow, here it is max 5% of the estate value overall, (or 0.4% per year for on-going management), and often set to be less if the estate is fairly easy to handle / manage. 5% would likely involve a lot of paperwork and properties to arrange for sale.
Relatives typically charge much less, often $0 plus out of pocket expenses.
So, how did a son in law get to be the sole executor, anyway? Wouldn't it have been your sister or you?
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Very gross.
My estate instructions (specifically in care of the kids until the youngest is 25) state that the executor gets $5,000 a year for the first 5 years, then $7500 for the next 5 years, and $10,000 for the next 5 years. It also states that year 1 is paid in full, even if it starts on 12/31, and so year 2 would be paid the very next day, and that the last year is paid in full, even though the youngest will turn 25 in mid-year.
Funds are held in a Vanguard fund as proposed in the JL Collins Series.
Taxes are to be filed by my current CPA.
Monthly payments of XXXX paid to guardian, extra XXXX for vacation, visiting specific relatives is allowed and those relatives are to be given XXXX for the visit. College funds are for in-state tuition only, so if they go to private school, they must find the other money. If child does not go to college but works for 4 years, then equivalent funds will be paid over 4 years (same for if they get full scholarships or use the GI Bill).
There's more, but the main thing is no ambiguity, no confusion.
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Very gross.
My estate instructions (specifically in care of the kids until the youngest is 25) state that the executor gets $5,000 a year for the first 5 years, then $7500 for the next 5 years, and $10,000 for the next 5 years. It also states that year 1 is paid in full, even if it starts on 12/31, and so year 2 would be paid the very next day, and that the last year is paid in full, even though the youngest will turn 25 in mid-year.
Funds are held in a Vanguard fund as proposed in the JL Collins Series.
Taxes are to be filed by my current CPA.
Monthly payments of XXXX paid to guardian, extra XXXX for vacation, visiting specific relatives is allowed and those relatives are to be given XXXX for the visit. College funds are for in-state tuition only, so if they go to private school, they must find the other money. If child does not go to college but works for 4 years, then equivalent funds will be paid over 4 years (same for if they get full scholarships or use the GI Bill).
There's more, but the main thing is no ambiguity, no confusion.
Wow. Where did you find someone who would agree to a 15 year commitment like that?
I'm executor for my mother and joint for my dad. They had a substantial estate, but we intend to have it wound up by 3 years. Of course, there are no children to look after...
More likely it was above board when the will was written, and the gambling took over fast, fairly recently.My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings..
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Wow, here it is max 5% of the estate value overall, (or 0.4% per year for on-going management), and often set to be less if the estate is fairly easy to handle / manage. 5% would likely involve a lot of paperwork and properties to arrange for sale.
Relatives typically charge much less, often $0 plus out of pocket expenses.
So, how did a son in law get to be the sole executor, anyway? Wouldn't it have been your sister or you?
I think I recall my parents saying their will specifies 1% for the executor, which will be my sister. She's more than welcome to that extra little bit. I consider myself with winner (when the time comes, hopefully years from now) for not having to do it.
I do agree that the BIL was an odd choice, and I wondered the same thing, especially given that he turned out to be such a greedy ass, although it sounds like that was mostly hidden until it was too late.
But my sister (she and I are the only children) and her husband named my husband (so her BIL) as their executor. Each of them has one sibling and it sounds like the disagreed over selecting which one it should be. It seems they thought picking neither was more equitable. (Whether that means just equitable between the two of them, or meant "more likely to be and seem fair when executing the responsibility", was unclear and I didn't ask.) It seems somewhat odd to me because it's not like he's in impartial third party--he's solidly team Villanelle in life so it's not like there will actually be no *appearance* of possible favoritism. But he was fine doing it, and it seemed to solve their problem, and given that he's perhaps the most honest and ethical person I've known I'm sure he'd be fair if for some reason I pushed him not to be (which of course I wouldn't do). But perhaps something like that was at play? Or maybe Six's BIL was almost as clever as he was greedy and made a play for executor duties, believing he could profit off it. Yuck.
Grandma didn't know how to manage money so she co-mingled her funds somehow with her brother to invest. Her brother re-married and then died about 3 years later. He got swindled by his new wife's lawyer/financial advisor and made a new will on his deathbed and left everything to the new much younger wife and step-kids... including my grandma's money since they had joint accounts of some sort (don't know all the details)
Other Lessons:
1. Lawyers/financial advisors can be snakes (not all, but shitty ones are out there and they don't announce themselves).
4. If you want to give money to family members or causes you care about, you should consider doing it BEFORE you die.. stuff can get messy once you're gone. My grandpa is probably rolling in his grave knowing that all of the money he saved his entire life ended up in the hands of people he never met or cared about and they proceeded to spend it on vacation houses, new cars and other shit he didn't care about.
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Very gross.
My estate instructions (specifically in care of the kids until the youngest is 25) state that the executor gets $5,000 a year for the first 5 years, then $7500 for the next 5 years, and $10,000 for the next 5 years. It also states that year 1 is paid in full, even if it starts on 12/31, and so year 2 would be paid the very next day, and that the last year is paid in full, even though the youngest will turn 25 in mid-year.
Funds are held in a Vanguard fund as proposed in the JL Collins Series.
Taxes are to be filed by my current CPA.
Monthly payments of XXXX paid to guardian, extra XXXX for vacation, visiting specific relatives is allowed and those relatives are to be given XXXX for the visit. College funds are for in-state tuition only, so if they go to private school, they must find the other money. If child does not go to college but works for 4 years, then equivalent funds will be paid over 4 years (same for if they get full scholarships or use the GI Bill).
There's more, but the main thing is no ambiguity, no confusion.
Wow. Where did you find someone who would agree to a 15 year commitment like that?
I'm executor for my mother and joint for my dad. They had a substantial estate, but we intend to have it wound up by 3 years. Of course, there are no children to look after...
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Very gross.
My estate instructions (specifically in care of the kids until the youngest is 25) state that the executor gets $5,000 a year for the first 5 years, then $7500 for the next 5 years, and $10,000 for the next 5 years. It also states that year 1 is paid in full, even if it starts on 12/31, and so year 2 would be paid the very next day, and that the last year is paid in full, even though the youngest will turn 25 in mid-year.
Funds are held in a Vanguard fund as proposed in the JL Collins Series.
Taxes are to be filed by my current CPA.
Monthly payments of XXXX paid to guardian, extra XXXX for vacation, visiting specific relatives is allowed and those relatives are to be given XXXX for the visit. College funds are for in-state tuition only, so if they go to private school, they must find the other money. If child does not go to college but works for 4 years, then equivalent funds will be paid over 4 years (same for if they get full scholarships or use the GI Bill).
There's more, but the main thing is no ambiguity, no confusion.
Wow. Where did you find someone who would agree to a 15 year commitment like that?
I'm executor for my mother and joint for my dad. They had a substantial estate, but we intend to have it wound up by 3 years. Of course, there are no children to look after...
For guardianship, the first person I asked realized he couldn't after initially saying yes. The next couple thoughtlessly said yes and then when I sent them the estate instructions, they were very surprised that there was so much to consider that had already been thought of ahead of time. They divorced and now I'm on to my 3rd choice.
This is over the course of about 10 years now, and the odds of me dying before these kids reach 25 is getting slimmer by the day.
For the estate management, a very old friend who does high-level admin work agreed to it. If he is unable, I'll ask a friend who has also acted as my attorney.
Along the way, though, getting people to initially read the estate instructions was a bit of a challenge. One guardian said, 'I didn't think it mattered,' to which I had to explain it was the very instructions they'd be held to, to care for 4 kids, and if they object to anything, they need to say so, because if I'm dead, it's set.
Thank goodness my parents have decided to declutter and sell the house. That was shaping up to be the biggest mess for an estate. Accounts already have beneficiaries to bypass probate. There are unopened boxes in the basement from my Dad's random stuff dating back from the 1970s - ones he packed up for a move 30 years ago, and never opened again.
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Very gross.
My estate instructions (specifically in care of the kids until the youngest is 25) state that the executor gets $5,000 a year for the first 5 years, then $7500 for the next 5 years, and $10,000 for the next 5 years. It also states that year 1 is paid in full, even if it starts on 12/31, and so year 2 would be paid the very next day, and that the last year is paid in full, even though the youngest will turn 25 in mid-year.
Funds are held in a Vanguard fund as proposed in the JL Collins Series.
Taxes are to be filed by my current CPA.
Monthly payments of XXXX paid to guardian, extra XXXX for vacation, visiting specific relatives is allowed and those relatives are to be given XXXX for the visit. College funds are for in-state tuition only, so if they go to private school, they must find the other money. If child does not go to college but works for 4 years, then equivalent funds will be paid over 4 years (same for if they get full scholarships or use the GI Bill).
There's more, but the main thing is no ambiguity, no confusion.
Wow. Where did you find someone who would agree to a 15 year commitment like that?
I'm executor for my mother and joint for my dad. They had a substantial estate, but we intend to have it wound up by 3 years. Of course, there are no children to look after...
For guardianship, the first person I asked realized he couldn't after initially saying yes. The next couple thoughtlessly said yes and then when I sent them the estate instructions, they were very surprised that there was so much to consider that had already been thought of ahead of time. They divorced and now I'm on to my 3rd choice.
This is over the course of about 10 years now, and the odds of me dying before these kids reach 25 is getting slimmer by the day.
For the estate management, a very old friend who does high-level admin work agreed to it. If he is unable, I'll ask a friend who has also acted as my attorney.
Along the way, though, getting people to initially read the estate instructions was a bit of a challenge. One guardian said, 'I didn't think it mattered,' to which I had to explain it was the very instructions they'd be held to, to care for 4 kids, and if they object to anything, they need to say so, because if I'm dead, it's set.
Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
This is so juicy that it almost needs its own ongoing thread. Wow. Just wow. You went above and beyond in multiple ways. Glad that you're not jumping on that sinking ship. Yikes.
I had to sadly inform them that I do not live anywhere near them (sadly will sell the house) and that since I would drive up, take whatever made sense and put it in the car (keepsakes and items they specifically tell me where they are), but absolutely everything else would be auctioned/sold off.
I have no use for 2 extra vehicles, 2 others that "will get repaired at some point", boxes that have not been unpacked in over 20 years (but have moved multiple times), and every other knickknack. This is a 3 story house with a separate 3 bay garage (the garage can't fit either of the working vehicles...nor at least one of the non-functional ones) - the house was purchased AFTER us kids were out.
Reading this thread, I really worry about the mess when my FIL passes. He is late 80s, willfully intestate ("When I die, it's going to be a big mess for all of you, and you will just have to deal with it."), a large home property with multiple garages and storage buildings filled to the rafters with junk, a house that has 30 years of deferred maintenance, a vacant apartment building that could have gone up in a fire that, unfortunately, was doused before it was burned down, but which left it uninhabitable, and another house that SIL is living in, which FIL should deed to her, but hasn't. Someone is going to spend years dealing with the estate, which is in California. I wonder how much will be lost in the probate process.
Reading this thread, I really worry about the mess when my FIL passes. He is late 80s, willfully intestate ("When I die, it's going to be a big mess for all of you, and you will just have to deal with it."), a large home property with multiple garages and storage buildings filled to the rafters with junk, a house that has 30 years of deferred maintenance, a vacant apartment building that could have gone up in a fire that, unfortunately, was doused before it was burned down, but which left it uninhabitable, and another house that SIL is living in, which FIL should deed to her, but hasn't. Someone is going to spend years dealing with the estate, which is in California. I wonder how much will be lost in the probate process.
FYI, you can refuse to take responsibility.
Reading this thread, I really worry about the mess when my FIL passes. He is late 80s, willfully intestate ("When I die, it's going to be a big mess for all of you, and you will just have to deal with it."), a large home property with multiple garages and storage buildings filled to the rafters with junk, a house that has 30 years of deferred maintenance, a vacant apartment building that could have gone up in a fire that, unfortunately, was doused before it was burned down, but which left it uninhabitable, and another house that SIL is living in, which FIL should deed to her, but hasn't. Someone is going to spend years dealing with the estate, which is in California. I wonder how much will be lost in the probate process.
Reading this thread, I really worry about the mess when my FIL passes. He is late 80s, willfully intestate ("When I die, it's going to be a big mess for all of you, and you will just have to deal with it."), a large home property with multiple garages and storage buildings filled to the rafters with junk, a house that has 30 years of deferred maintenance, a vacant apartment building that could have gone up in a fire that, unfortunately, was doused before it was burned down, but which left it uninhabitable, and another house that SIL is living in, which FIL should deed to her, but hasn't. Someone is going to spend years dealing with the estate, which is in California. I wonder how much will be lost in the probate process.
If the people whom California law designates as the heirs all get along, I'm not sure this needs to be a mess worth worrying about. Sell everything, divide the proceeds. If the heirs tell the executor to prioritize speed over maximum gain, does it really have to take years?
Reading this thread, I really worry about the mess when my FIL passes. He is late 80s, willfully intestate ("When I die, it's going to be a big mess for all of you, and you will just have to deal with it."), a large home property with multiple garages and storage buildings filled to the rafters with junk, a house that has 30 years of deferred maintenance, a vacant apartment building that could have gone up in a fire that, unfortunately, was doused before it was burned down, but which left it uninhabitable, and another house that SIL is living in, which FIL should deed to her, but hasn't. Someone is going to spend years dealing with the estate, which is in California. I wonder how much will be lost in the probate process.
OMG, are they ditherers? A group of ditherers in charge is hell on earth to me.
If the people whom California law designates as the heirs all get along, I'm not sure this needs to be a mess worth worrying about. Sell everything, divide the proceeds. If the heirs tell the executor to prioritize speed over maximum gain, does it really have to take years?
My main concern is that the heirs, including my spouse, are as indecisive and disorganized as my FIL. But I appreciate the perspective above that i can just try to disengage when it happens.
A parent like this rarely spawns an entire group of non-dysfunctional offspring. It only takes one to drag it out for years.Reading this thread, I really worry about the mess when my FIL passes. He is late 80s, willfully intestate ("When I die, it's going to be a big mess for all of you, and you will just have to deal with it."), a large home property with multiple garages and storage buildings filled to the rafters with junk, a house that has 30 years of deferred maintenance, a vacant apartment building that could have gone up in a fire that, unfortunately, was doused before it was burned down, but which left it uninhabitable, and another house that SIL is living in, which FIL should deed to her, but hasn't. Someone is going to spend years dealing with the estate, which is in California. I wonder how much will be lost in the probate process.
If the people whom California law designates as the heirs all get along, I'm not sure this needs to be a mess worth worrying about. Sell everything, divide the proceeds. If the heirs tell the executor to prioritize speed over maximum gain, does it really have to take years?
But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
Enjoy your decades of not having to work for a living, while he lives in a state of constant panic over small emergencies :)
But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
Enjoy your decades of not having to work for a living, while he lives in a state of constant panic over small emergencies :)
It certainly is!
Though he drives me crazy with his insensitivity, I'm desperately hoping he'll want to retire early too after watching us. If only he could get his big head out of his ass...
There's an old saying that sums it up: "If you meet one jerk today, you've met one jerk. If *everyone* is a jerk today, then *you're* the jerk." Wise words--we use a version of this with our kids ("If one of your siblings is bugging you, then come ask for help. If everyone is bugging you, you're probably the problem")But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
Enjoy your decades of not having to work for a living, while he lives in a state of constant panic over small emergencies :)
It certainly is!
Though he drives me crazy with his insensitivity, I'm desperately hoping he'll want to retire early too after watching us. If only he could get his big head out of his ass...
I'm in a similar situation. I cut my aunt off a long time ago and I know one sibling will probably inherit everything. Every time I hear them complain about her, I just think "not my circus, not my monkeys". The worst was when I heard complaints through my siblings that it was so expensive to keep changing your will to cut more people out. I think my sibling is the only one out of all the nieces/nephews/godchildren still in the will. It happens that people fall out but when you fall out with so many people there's clearly something wrong with you. I wouldn't want such an incredibly toxic person in my life for all the money in the world.
But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
Enjoy your decades of not having to work for a living, while he lives in a state of constant panic over small emergencies :)
It certainly is!
Though he drives me crazy with his insensitivity, I'm desperately hoping he'll want to retire early too after watching us. If only he could get his big head out of his ass...
I'm in a similar situation. I cut my aunt off a long time ago and I know one sibling will probably inherit everything. Every time I hear them complain about her, I just think "not my circus, not my monkeys". The worst was when I heard complaints through my siblings that it was so expensive to keep changing your will to cut more people out. I think my sibling is the only one out of all the nieces/nephews/godchildren still in the will. It happens that people fall out but when you fall out with so many people there's clearly something wrong with you. I wouldn't want such an incredibly toxic person in my life for all the money in the world.
But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
Enjoy your decades of not having to work for a living, while he lives in a state of constant panic over small emergencies :)
It certainly is!
Though he drives me crazy with his insensitivity, I'm desperately hoping he'll want to retire early too after watching us. If only he could get his big head out of his ass...
I'm in a similar situation. I cut my aunt off a long time ago and I know one sibling will probably inherit everything. Every time I hear them complain about her, I just think "not my circus, not my monkeys". The worst was when I heard complaints through my siblings that it was so expensive to keep changing your will to cut more people out. I think my sibling is the only one out of all the nieces/nephews/godchildren still in the will. It happens that people fall out but when you fall out with so many people there's clearly something wrong with you. I wouldn't want such an incredibly toxic person in my life for all the money in the world.
Exactly!!! My aunt is so awful to be around! I told my husband the same thing- putting up with her crap isn't worth the inheritance for one second. And my aunt is the same way as yours with cutting people out. If she'd had children, I'd bet she would've cut them out by now too. It amazes me she hasn't cut me out yet. Lol a ticking time bomb I'm sure with my mouth.
It really sucks to cut out family members but no one needs extra stress in their lives.
But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
Enjoy your decades of not having to work for a living, while he lives in a state of constant panic over small emergencies :)
It certainly is!
Though he drives me crazy with his insensitivity, I'm desperately hoping he'll want to retire early too after watching us. If only he could get his big head out of his ass...
I'm in a similar situation. I cut my aunt off a long time ago and I know one sibling will probably inherit everything. Every time I hear them complain about her, I just think "not my circus, not my monkeys". The worst was when I heard complaints through my siblings that it was so expensive to keep changing your will to cut more people out. I think my sibling is the only one out of all the nieces/nephews/godchildren still in the will. It happens that people fall out but when you fall out with so many people there's clearly something wrong with you. I wouldn't want such an incredibly toxic person in my life for all the money in the world.
Exactly!!! My aunt is so awful to be around! I told my husband the same thing- putting up with her crap isn't worth the inheritance for one second. And my aunt is the same way as yours with cutting people out. If she'd had children, I'd bet she would've cut them out by now too. It amazes me she hasn't cut me out yet. Lol a ticking time bomb I'm sure with my mouth.
It really sucks to cut out family members but no one needs extra stress in their lives.
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
You've obviously never read much Agatha Christie...
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
You've obviously never read much Agatha Christie...
Um, can’t say that I have...
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
You've obviously never read much Agatha Christie...
Um, can’t say that I have...
She's a writer from the golden age of detective fiction (between the wars) and SO many of her books are about a cantankerous old person changing their will multiple times with great fanfare to include or exclude various family members in order to keep them at their beck and call, and include a large cast of hangers-on who kowtow to COP (cantankerous old person)'s every demand in the hope of being in their good books on the day they die and therefore being in the latest version of the will. Naturally, that means they all have a potent motive for being the murderer. In fact, the catalyst for the murder is often that COP has a fight with someone and announces that they will call their solicitor tomorrow and cut them out of the will - but they mysteriously die before they manage to do it...
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
It IS manipulative. That's the exact point of doing it.
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
You've obviously never read much Agatha Christie...
Um, can’t say that I have...
She's a writer from the golden age of detective fiction (between the wars) and SO many of her books are about a cantankerous old person changing their will multiple times with great fanfare to include or exclude various family members in order to keep them at their beck and call, and include a large cast of hangers-on who kowtow to COP (cantankerous old person)'s every demand in the hope of being in their good books on the day they die and therefore being in the latest version of the will. Naturally, that means they all have a potent motive for being the murderer. In fact, the catalyst for the murder is often that COP has a fight with someone and announces that they will call their solicitor tomorrow and cut them out of the will - but they mysteriously die before they manage to do it...
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
You've obviously never read much Agatha Christie...
Um, can’t say that I have...
She's a writer from the golden age of detective fiction (between the wars) and SO many of her books are about a cantankerous old person changing their will multiple times with great fanfare to include or exclude various family members in order to keep them at their beck and call, and include a large cast of hangers-on who kowtow to COP (cantankerous old person)'s every demand in the hope of being in their good books on the day they die and therefore being in the latest version of the will. Naturally, that means they all have a potent motive for being the murderer. In fact, the catalyst for the murder is often that COP has a fight with someone and announces that they will call their solicitor tomorrow and cut them out of the will - but they mysteriously die before they manage to do it...
I will definitely check them out! Thanks for the info. By the way, I know of Agatha Christie, just don’t recall reading any of her books or what they are about.
Imma, you are such a late bloomer. Your auntie must be soooo disappointed...
Imma, you are such a late bloomer. Your auntie must be soooo disappointed...
The worst thing is, she truly is! I can't imagine actually caring enough about the life choices of family members I don't like to be disappointed in them. When we were still in touch she was in my phone as Hyacinth Bucket.
Imma, you are such a late bloomer. Your auntie must be soooo disappointed...
The worst thing is, she truly is! I can't imagine actually caring enough about the life choices of family members I don't like to be disappointed in them. When we were still in touch she was in my phone as Hyacinth Bucket.
My dad and aunt had one of those Agatha Christie aunts too so I guess they just think that's normal behaviour? She died of natural causes, but I'm sure some family members were sometimes tempted as she was so difficult.
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
You've obviously never read much Agatha Christie...
Um, can’t say that I have...
She's a writer from the golden age of detective fiction (between the wars) and SO many of her books are about a cantankerous old person changing their will multiple times with great fanfare to include or exclude various family members in order to keep them at their beck and call, and include a large cast of hangers-on who kowtow to COP (cantankerous old person)'s every demand in the hope of being in their good books on the day they die and therefore being in the latest version of the will. Naturally, that means they all have a potent motive for being the murderer. In fact, the catalyst for the murder is often that COP has a fight with someone and announces that they will call their solicitor tomorrow and cut them out of the will - but they mysteriously die before they manage to do it...
I will definitely check them out! Thanks for the info. By the way, I know of Agatha Christie, just don’t recall reading any of her books or what they are about.
I actually haven't *read* that many but am a HUGE fan of the ITV Poirot series with David Suchet. Maybe it's an acquired taste? But it's our go-to comfort viewing. I'm currently trudging through the ITV Marples and they are just not up to snuff.
Imma, you are such a late bloomer. Your auntie must be soooo disappointed...
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
It IS manipulative. That's the exact point of doing it.
Yes, my aunt always used to inform us that so-and-so was out of the will because he did this thing, so we should make sure we never do this thing because that would mean we were going to be out of the will and we weren't going to get The Inheritance. The way she talkes about it you may think it's a multi million trust fund, but it's a bog standard terraced house that still has a mortgage and her china from the 1980s.
She used to teach me valuable life lessons like how you should set aside 10% of your earnings to invest in jewelry, that no one has ever gotten a job through networking and that I will probably end up on my own because I didn't go steady with anyone during highschool and always look like a mess. And then came "at your age I was married already!". I first met Mr Imma at the ripe old age of 22 and didn't "go steady" with him until I was 23! The horror. Instead of investing in jewelry I became a home owner at 24. I'm 30 now and just bought my first set of china and my first piece of real (vintage) jewelry this year. Still look like a mess, so I made sure to find a guy who doesn't like make-up and nailpolish and things like that.
Networking in todays sense didn’t exist at least in the working classes. The same with marriage at least from a more european perspective.
Networking in todays sense didn’t exist at least in the working classes. The same with marriage at least from a more european perspective.
I don't know where you got that idea. Gobs of working class people have helped a buddy get a job.
Networking in todays sense didn’t exist at least in the working classes. The same with marriage at least from a more european perspective.
I don't know where you got that idea. Gobs of working class people have helped a buddy get a job.
That is why I wrote in todays sense. Networking in the meaning of going to networks events, lunches or conferences with the purpose of getting a job or business but if I look up the word in a english dictionary it can be for both professional and social reasons. I would skip a lot of events if it would not be a part of being in the business as I do. I don’t meet my friends for ”networking” and I don’t see it as networking to help a buddy or a family member get a job but maybe it is a language difference.
Networking in todays sense didn’t exist at least in the working classes. The same with marriage at least from a more european perspective.
I don't know where you got that idea. Gobs of working class people have helped a buddy get a job.
That is why I wrote in todays sense. Networking in the meaning of going to networks events, lunches or conferences with the purpose of getting a job or business but if I look up the word in a english dictionary it can be for both professional and social reasons. I would skip a lot of events if it would not be a part of being in the business as I do. I don’t meet my friends for ”networking” and I don’t see it as networking to help a buddy or a family member get a job but maybe it is a language difference.
You mean conferences like this:
"https://1tomplumber.com/best-plumbing-trade-shows-in-2020/ (https://1tomplumber.com/best-plumbing-trade-shows-in-2020/)"
Lead paragraph from the site:
"Whether you own a plumbing business or aspire to one day, plumbing trade shows help you stay up to date with the greatest trends and technology in the industry. Creating a better customer experience through new tools, supplies, and networking with others will give you a leg up on the competition. Here’s our recommendation of the top ten plumbing trade shows to attend in 2020!"
I've met tradespeople coming to REIA (Real Estate Investors Association) meetings to meet and network with the investors.
I suspect it's just not on your radar screen.
I think my country remained conservative for a long time - in my parents' youth, pre-marital sex, let alone living together before marriage, were taboo.
I think my country remained conservative for a long time - in my parents' youth, pre-marital sex, let alone living together before marriage, were taboo.
This is still the case in parts of the US. When Mr E and I moved in together before we got married (we were engaged but not married yet) we were no longer welcome at some family gatherings because we were a "bad example." It caused quite a lot of stress and heartache and my relationship with that part of the family will never be the same again.
ETA: In my family and with most of the community I grew up in getting married young is still the case as well. My grandparents got married at 18 & 21, my parents got married at 17 & 18, and then I got married at 28. My family members couldn't figure out why I wan't getting married. When I got pregnant for the first time at 29 I got lots of comments about being so OLD to be a parent, and then when I got pregnant again at 30 there was honest to goodness shock because they thought I had waited so late to get started that I would only have 1. All of my cousins/aunts/etc all had their first child before 22. I should also point out that I'm the first and still one of the only people in my family to have a college degree, and in that community it is very rare for someone to go to college.
I think my country remained conservative for a long time - in my parents' youth, pre-marital sex, let alone living together before marriage, were taboo.
This is still the case in parts of the US. When Mr E and I moved in together before we got married (we were engaged but not married yet) we were no longer welcome at some family gatherings because we were a "bad example." It caused quite a lot of stress and heartache and my relationship with that part of the family will never be the same again.
ETA: In my family and with most of the community I grew up in getting married young is still the case as well. My grandparents got married at 18 & 21, my parents got married at 17 & 18, and then I got married at 28. My family members couldn't figure out why I wan't getting married. When I got pregnant for the first time at 29 I got lots of comments about being so OLD to be a parent, and then when I got pregnant again at 30 there was honest to goodness shock because they thought I had waited so late to get started that I would only have 1. All of my cousins/aunts/etc all had their first child before 22. I should also point out that I'm the first and still one of the only people in my family to have a college degree, and in that community it is very rare for someone to go to college.
Yeah, I'm in the Bible belt and weddings during the summer following HS graduation aren't *that* uncommon. It's usually either because one, or both, are joining the military or that they want to have sex without sinning.
I think my country remained conservative for a long time - in my parents' youth, pre-marital sex, let alone living together before marriage, were taboo.
This is still the case in parts of the US. When Mr E and I moved in together before we got married (we were engaged but not married yet) we were no longer welcome at some family gatherings because we were a "bad example." It caused quite a lot of stress and heartache and my relationship with that part of the family will never be the same again.
ETA: In my family and with most of the community I grew up in getting married young is still the case as well. My grandparents got married at 18 & 21, my parents got married at 17 & 18, and then I got married at 28. My family members couldn't figure out why I wan't getting married. When I got pregnant for the first time at 29 I got lots of comments about being so OLD to be a parent, and then when I got pregnant again at 30 there was honest to goodness shock because they thought I had waited so late to get started that I would only have 1. All of my cousins/aunts/etc all had their first child before 22. I should also point out that I'm the first and still one of the only people in my family to have a college degree, and in that community it is very rare for someone to go to college.
Yeah, I'm in the Bible belt and weddings during the summer following HS graduation aren't *that* uncommon. It's usually either because one, or both, are joining the military or that they want to have sex without sinning.
Or there is a baby coming in 6-7 months.
I had a trousseau too at that age! Not with fine china for 12 people like my aunt but I really wanted to move out, so any time someone got rid of something, or when you could collect trading stamps for something I would ask people for that.( I googled that term, I hope that's the correct term - the kind of stamps you get with every X amount spent in a store that you can exchange for household goods. ) I collected it in a box under my bed. I still have almost all of it - the towels and the knives and the mug I got as a Christmas present at my first job. Only the pots and pans turned out to be not great quality and I threw out the last one a few weeks ago.
In the 50s the average age for a woman to get married was 27 in here. That dropped to around 23 in the 70s and 80s and now we're at 30 or something. I think my country remained conservative for a long time - in my parents' youth, pre-marital sex, let alone living together before marriage, were taboo. Our parents are apparantly of a similar age but it sounds like yours were a few decades ahead of mine! My friend's parents had to get married when her mum's landlady caught her dad sneaking in at night and called mum's parents! That was probably during the early 80s. Things changed quickly in the 90s.
My parents and in-laws are pushing for grandchildren too but it looks like that's not going to happen on either side of the family. It makes me kind of sad that even if one of our siblings were to have children, those kids won't experience family life like I did. It wasn't always great, there was lots of drama, but there were lots of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, people you were somehow related to but you didn't actually know how exactly. Everyone's door was always open. There are only a handful of family members left now.
I think my country remained conservative for a long time - in my parents' youth, pre-marital sex, let alone living together before marriage, were taboo.
This is still the case in parts of the US. When Mr E and I moved in together before we got married (we were engaged but not married yet) we were no longer welcome at some family gatherings because we were a "bad example." It caused quite a lot of stress and heartache and my relationship with that part of the family will never be the same again.
ETA: In my family and with most of the community I grew up in getting married young is still the case as well. My grandparents got married at 18 & 21, my parents got married at 17 & 18, and then I got married at 28. My family members couldn't figure out why I wan't getting married. When I got pregnant for the first time at 29 I got lots of comments about being so OLD to be a parent, and then when I got pregnant again at 30 there was honest to goodness shock because they thought I had waited so late to get started that I would only have 1. All of my cousins/aunts/etc all had their first child before 22. I should also point out that I'm the first and still one of the only people in my family to have a college degree, and in that community it is very rare for someone to go to college.
Yeah, I'm in the Bible belt and weddings during the summer following HS graduation aren't *that* uncommon. It's usually either because one, or both, are joining the military or that they want to have sex without sinning.
I'm always surprised that so many people don't have their affairs in order. A lot of people really don't want to face their own mortality. Recently we found out that something like that happened in our family too - and that person was a mentally sharp 90-something. Even they had not seen death coming.
I have a law degree and whenever close friends go through a major life event I always inquire whether they've talked things through with a legal professional. I always say something like "I don't want to be rude, and I certainly don't want to know the details, but my professional experience is that it's important that you talk about your situation together to make sure you're on the same page about things and whether your paperwork reflects your wishes".
More than one couple actually came back to thank me about that, because they found out things they didn't know. Like that one person who bought a house with a relative, very similar to the situation described in this thread, relative moved out, new spouse moves in - my acquintance had absolutely no idea the relative was still on the deed and not the husband. They figured marriage would take care of that "because you get told you need to get married to get your affairs in order". Other fairly common things I've encountered in my work are life insurance policies benefitting an ex instead of a current partner, a new mortgage on a home one person owned before marriage that's on both names but the property is still in one name and outdated wills.
A very painful situation happened in my family not too long ago - my cousin, in her 30s, had a long-term partner in his 50s with adult kids from a previous marriage. Cousin and him had been together for years and had a family but wanted to wait with marriage until their kids were a bit older so they could share in the happy day. Waiting with marriage until the kids are older and have a family celebration has become quite common in our country, but in our jurisdiction there are several forms of civil partnership they could have chosen instead to get their affairs in order. But they didn't think that was necessary. Well, he had a heart attack and died and he left the house that he had owned for years before they met to his adult kids and his life insurance too. And I think his pension went to his ex. Legally you can't disinherit your kids so they went to court and his young children got a share too, but the adult kids owned most of it so they forced a sale. That sale generated some funds but it belongs to the kids, mum can't use it to buy a new home. They've all lived with her parents ever since.
Can you get married before 18? Here, it would require a special license, that is really hard to obtain.
I'm always surprised that so many people don't have their affairs in order. A lot of people really don't want to face their own mortality. Recently we found out that something like that happened in our family too - and that person was a mentally sharp 90-something. Even they had not seen death coming.
I have a law degree and whenever close friends go through a major life event I always inquire whether they've talked things through with a legal professional. I always say something like "I don't want to be rude, and I certainly don't want to know the details, but my professional experience is that it's important that you talk about your situation together to make sure you're on the same page about things and whether your paperwork reflects your wishes".
More than one couple actually came back to thank me about that, because they found out things they didn't know. Like that one person who bought a house with a relative, very similar to the situation described in this thread, relative moved out, new spouse moves in - my acquintance had absolutely no idea the relative was still on the deed and not the husband. They figured marriage would take care of that "because you get told you need to get married to get your affairs in order". Other fairly common things I've encountered in my work are life insurance policies benefitting an ex instead of a current partner, a new mortgage on a home one person owned before marriage that's on both names but the property is still in one name and outdated wills.
A very painful situation happened in my family not too long ago - my cousin, in her 30s, had a long-term partner in his 50s with adult kids from a previous marriage. Cousin and him had been together for years and had a family but wanted to wait with marriage until their kids were a bit older so they could share in the happy day. Waiting with marriage until the kids are older and have a family celebration has become quite common in our country, but in our jurisdiction there are several forms of civil partnership they could have chosen instead to get their affairs in order. But they didn't think that was necessary. Well, he had a heart attack and died and he left the house that he had owned for years before they met to his adult kids and his life insurance too. And I think his pension went to his ex. Legally you can't disinherit your kids so they went to court and his young children got a share too, but the adult kids owned most of it so they forced a sale. That sale generated some funds but it belongs to the kids, mum can't use it to buy a new home. They've all lived with her parents ever since.
I thought the same thing happened with my Dad. he passed away this year unexpectedly just shy of 88. Whenever we broached the topic of a will or getting affairs in orders he said that he had "taken care of it" and "don't worry about it." He passed unexpectedly. He did have my little brother on the two main accounts but there was not enough to cover funeral expenses. So we paid the bills and assumed we each would be on the hook for around 4K each. We were puzzled because he seemed so emphatic he had taken care of it. Anyways maybe a month later my sister going through the files and paperwork found a sealed envelope addressed to us. Between that and selling his car paid off the funeral expenses and gave each of us around 500. So he HAD planned it. Just that we almost didn't find it, and the whole process (especially trying to figure out what his wishes were and have it happen in a short period of time) was unnecessarily nerve wracking and stressful. At the same time he lived very simply; unlike the horror stories here there was just an apartment with minimalistic furnishings (most of which is in my brother's garage). Every time I think of buying something for someone, I now think, who is going to have to deal with this after the person is gone? It just becomes junk at that point.
Can you get married before 18? Here, it would require a special license, that is really hard to obtain.
It depends on whether the parents agree.
In California, Maine, Washington, Idaho, West Virginia and New Mexico there is no lower age limit, provided at least one parent or guardian consents.
There are several states that have low minimum ages. The lowest is in Massachusetts, where boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 can be married when the parents consent and the judge goes along with it. That dates back to English civil law; it doesn't appear that they got around to changing it. Massachusetts marriages do not emancipate the minor, but marriages in other states do.
In Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, and Utah the minimum age of marriage is 15. In Mississippi it's 15 for females but 17 for males. Most states have a minimum age of 16 or 17. At age 18 it's no longer an underage marriage in most states... meaning parental consent is not required.
So yes, it's legal to marry 12-year-old females in Boston, provided the consent of at least one parent or guardian can be had and the judge goes along with it.
Can you get married before 18? Here, it would require a special license, that is really hard to obtain.
It depends on whether the parents agree.
In California, Maine, Washington, Idaho, West Virginia and New Mexico there is no lower age limit, provided at least one parent or guardian consents.
There are several states that have low minimum ages. The lowest is in Massachusetts, where boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 can be married when the parents consent and the judge goes along with it. That dates back to English civil law; it doesn't appear that they got around to changing it. Massachusetts marriages do not emancipate the minor, but marriages in other states do.
In Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, and Utah the minimum age of marriage is 15. In Mississippi it's 15 for females but 17 for males. Most states have a minimum age of 16 or 17. At age 18 it's no longer an underage marriage in most states... meaning parental consent is not required.
So yes, it's legal to marry 12-year-old females in Boston, provided the consent of at least one parent or guardian can be had and the judge goes along with it.
At some point, my son is going to realize that he was born 5.5 months after my husband and I got married.
At some point, my son is going to realize that he was born 5.5 months after my husband and I got married.
You might want to talk to him about that. I realised that at some point about my parents and it was actually a really sucky thing to realise. I never talked to them about it, but I always wondered if maybe they never really wanted to get married but "had to" because I was on the way and so I trapped them into a marriage they never wanted. They had a tiny lunchtime wedding and there is only one photo. Is it because they're not showy people or because it was a bit of a rush? I mean, I'm highly over-dramatising things here, but I was a histrionic child with not very emotionally open parents and found it an unpleasant discovery when I was little.
Not that you need to have A Talk, but you might want to mention that it happens sometimes and it's OK.
At some point, my son is going to realize that he was born 5.5 months after my husband and I got married.
You might want to talk to him about that. I realised that at some point about my parents and it was actually a really sucky thing to realise. I never talked to them about it, but I always wondered if maybe they never really wanted to get married but "had to" because I was on the way and so I trapped them into a marriage they never wanted. They had a tiny lunchtime wedding and there is only one photo. Is it because they're not showy people or because it was a bit of a rush? I mean, I'm highly over-dramatising things here, but I was a histrionic child with not very emotionally open parents and found it an unpleasant discovery when I was little.
Not that you need to have A Talk, but you might want to mention that it happens sometimes and it's OK.
Yeah, I know. He's only 7 though, so I figure that will come about the same time as the "where do babies come from" talk.
Imma, you are such a late bloomer. Your auntie must be soooo disappointed...
The worst thing is, she truly is! I can't imagine actually caring enough about the life choices of family members I don't like to be disappointed in them. When we were still in touch she was in my phone as Hyacinth Bucket.
At some point, my son is going to realize that he was born 5.5 months after my husband and I got married.
You might want to talk to him about that. I realised that at some point about my parents and it was actually a really sucky thing to realise. I never talked to them about it, but I always wondered if maybe they never really wanted to get married but "had to" because I was on the way and so I trapped them into a marriage they never wanted. They had a tiny lunchtime wedding and there is only one photo. Is it because they're not showy people or because it was a bit of a rush? I mean, I'm highly over-dramatising things here, but I was a histrionic child with not very emotionally open parents and found it an unpleasant discovery when I was little.
Not that you need to have A Talk, but you might want to mention that it happens sometimes and it's OK.
Yeah, I know. He's only 7 though, so I figure that will come about the same time as the "where do babies come from" talk.
At some point, my son is going to realize that he was born 5.5 months after my husband and I got married.
You might want to talk to him about that. I realised that at some point about my parents and it was actually a really sucky thing to realise. I never talked to them about it, but I always wondered if maybe they never really wanted to get married but "had to" because I was on the way and so I trapped them into a marriage they never wanted. They had a tiny lunchtime wedding and there is only one photo. Is it because they're not showy people or because it was a bit of a rush? I mean, I'm highly over-dramatising things here, but I was a histrionic child with not very emotionally open parents and found it an unpleasant discovery when I was little.
Not that you need to have A Talk, but you might want to mention that it happens sometimes and it's OK.
Yeah, I know. He's only 7 though, so I figure that will come about the same time as the "where do babies come from" talk.
My high school boyfriend was almost EIGHTEEN when he realized that his parent's eighteenth anniversary was only four months before his birthday. They had written both dates on the calendar. They were clearly waiting for him to math this out.
I had a friend who was born eight and a half months after her parents' wedding and I always liked to imagine people wondering she was a preemie before finding out she was ten pounds!
No Inheritance Drama here...at least not yet, but I do have a story of something good that happened this past weekend. My grandfather who is 97 moved in with my parent's about a month ago due to him getting older in age and he didn't want to go into a nursing home. In order for that to work out they all purchased a larger home and both of their old houses are under contract. My grandfather packed up all of his must haves and took them to the new house and told the rest of the family that anything still at his house is fair game. So over the past few weeks family members have gone over and taken the few sentimental items that they would like to have. So far everyone has been extremely cordial and there hasn't been any issues. My wife and I were the last to go through the house and there was still quite a bit of stuff there. Surprisingly the family Antique Singer sewing machine was still there and it is fully operational. About 9 years ago he had a repairman come in and get it all working. He was thrilled when we took it as no one else wanted it. We got a few other small items which I hold dear to my heart but really all we want is for grandpa to be around longer. We've got a lot of wonderful years with him and I have to say that going through this process is going to help relieve some unneeded stress when he does pass. This is one time I've actually been proud of my family for not being absolutely insane.
My daughter was also born 6.5 months after the wedding. When I tried to discuss it with her, she said with voice dripping preteen disdain, "Mom, I know. I can do the math!"
My daughter was also born 6.5 months after the wedding. When I tried to discuss it with her, she said with voice dripping preteen disdain, "Mom, I know. I can do the math!"
I was 28 at my grandparents' 50th anniversary, when I realized that my oldest uncle was born at least a month too early. When I asked my mom, she laughed and said, "The story I got is that it was only one time, and Mom didn't know until after they were married."
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Both attorneys we talk to about wills say make your intentions known before hand. No surprises.What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
Both attorneys we talk to about wills say make your intentions known before hand. No surprises.What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I am uncomfortable with that advice for my household because my will will not look like it does now in ten years, in 20 years.
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I've been thinking about this actually. The way my aunt handled things is manipulative, for sure. I don't want to be like that. But Covid got me thinking a little bit. We are a childless couple with no nieces/nephews. We have left money to some relatives and friends and not to others. We've written very plainly in our will that A and B are not going to inherit and no one is going to be surprised because we're not in touch at all. And I figured that everything will go to the surviving spouse first anyway.
But with Covid I realized that we could pass at roughly the same time as well (from a legal point of view this is covered in the will). Someone outside of us needs to be aware of our will, where in the house we keep our financial stuff, who has keys to the house etc. But who do you pick? It is well known that we don't like A and B and we haven't been in touch for years and years. But our heirs do have a bond with them and I don't want to burden them with that information.
Another concern, a friend of mine was recently contacted by police that a long lost sibling was dying in the hospital. Turns out the police contact family members in a certain specific order in our country and guess which relatives are on top of our lists? Yes. A and B. Now, I hope our relatives would contact the rest of the family but since these people are idiots I have no idea what they'd do. I've arranged medical power of attorney and my own doctors are aware of that but if I fall ill out of town and the wrong people are contacted, it all falls apart. Chances of this happening are low but stakes are high.
Both attorneys we talk to about wills say make your intentions known before hand. No surprises.What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I am uncomfortable with that advice for my household because my will will not look like it does now in ten years, in 20 years.
Part of the notification can be that you plan to review it every 5 years (or whatever), and if anything major happens. Lots of life events mean wills need revision.
Plus you don't have to go into great detail. Person X is my executor, person Y is backup, rough division of assets. A list for important personal items. Where the executor can find the will, important documents.Etc.
This has been standard in my family, no drama in any generation.
Another concern, a friend of mine was recently contacted by police that a long lost sibling was dying in the hospital. Turns out the police contact family members in a certain specific order in our country and guess which relatives are on top of our lists? Yes. A and B. Now, I hope our relatives would contact the rest of the family but since these people are idiots I have no idea what they'd do. I've arranged medical power of attorney and my own doctors are aware of that but if I fall ill out of town and the wrong people are contacted, it all falls apart. Chances of this happening are low but stakes are high.
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I've been thinking about this actually. The way my aunt handled things is manipulative, for sure. I don't want to be like that. But Covid got me thinking a little bit. We are a childless couple with no nieces/nephews. We have left money to some relatives and friends and not to others. We've written very plainly in our will that A and B are not going to inherit and no one is going to be surprised because we're not in touch at all. And I figured that everything will go to the surviving spouse first anyway.
But with Covid I realized that we could pass at roughly the same time as well (from a legal point of view this is covered in the will). Someone outside of us needs to be aware of our will, where in the house we keep our financial stuff, who has keys to the house etc. But who do you pick? It is well known that we don't like A and B and we haven't been in touch for years and years. But our heirs do have a bond with them and I don't want to burden them with that information.
Another concern, a friend of mine was recently contacted by police that a long lost sibling was dying in the hospital. Turns out the police contact family members in a certain specific order in our country and guess which relatives are on top of our lists? Yes. A and B. Now, I hope our relatives would contact the rest of the family but since these people are idiots I have no idea what they'd do. I've arranged medical power of attorney and my own doctors are aware of that but if I fall ill out of town and the wrong people are contacted, it all falls apart. Chances of this happening are low but stakes are high.
Something like this may be a good role for a friend. You don't really even need to specify "in case of death". Just give them a key and tell them where important papers are kept, 'in case of emergency'.
For the second issue, is it a problem if A and B are notified? Is the concern that they wouldn't then notify C and D, who are the people who need to know? This could also be something you tell that friend. "Hey, my family dynamics are a bit strained in some regards. If anything happens to me and you become aware of it, C and D need to be notified. Their contact info is in that place I told you all our important papers are located. They also have medical PoA."
You might also make sure your phone is set up with an emergency contact. I don't know about other systems, but with Apple there is a way to do this that first responders and hospital staff can access that emergency contact without unlocking your phone. Google can tell you how to do it, but it's pretty simple. My coroner sister alerted me to the function and encouraged me to use it. If you set that to C or D, they'd get the call and could step in.
Another concern, a friend of mine was recently contacted by police that a long lost sibling was dying in the hospital. Turns out the police contact family members in a certain specific order in our country and guess which relatives are on top of our lists? Yes. A and B. Now, I hope our relatives would contact the rest of the family but since these people are idiots I have no idea what they'd do. I've arranged medical power of attorney and my own doctors are aware of that but if I fall ill out of town and the wrong people are contacted, it all falls apart. Chances of this happening are low but stakes are high.
We have a laminated card in our wallets from our lawyer that directs the appropriate parties to contact them.
Both attorneys we talk to about wills say make your intentions known before hand. No surprises.What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I am uncomfortable with that advice for my household because my will will not look like it does now in ten years, in 20 years.
Part of the notification can be that you plan to review it every 5 years (or whatever), and if anything major happens. Lots of life events mean wills need revision.
Plus you don't have to go into great detail. Person X is my executor, person Y is backup, rough division of assets. A list for important personal items. Where the executor can find the will, important documents.Etc.
This has been standard in my family, no drama in any generation.
Oh relevant parties know who the executors are and where to find the will.
It’s when we talk about rough division of assets ...that will change. I’m less and less interested in leaving money to relatives as time goes on. And as I plan to spend my assets, it will be less likely that I will divide assets 10 ways as in our current will.
Both attorneys we talk to about wills say make your intentions known before hand. No surprises.What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I am uncomfortable with that advice for my household because my will will not look like it does now in ten years, in 20 years.
Part of the notification can be that you plan to review it every 5 years (or whatever), and if anything major happens. Lots of life events mean wills need revision.
Plus you don't have to go into great detail. Person X is my executor, person Y is backup, rough division of assets. A list for important personal items. Where the executor can find the will, important documents.Etc.
This has been standard in my family, no drama in any generation.
Oh relevant parties know who the executors are and where to find the will.
It’s when we talk about rough division of assets ...that will change. I’m less and less interested in leaving money to relatives as time goes on. And as I plan to spend my assets, it will be less likely that I will divide assets 10 ways as in our current will.
Wills can be contested (at least in my US state). Hence we created a revocable living trust to avoid probate.
(Wife has a workplace benefit; we got it done for free.)
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/051315/will-vs-trust-difference-between-two.asp
... story about horrible sibling and her spouse...
But, I thought back to my dad who had passed away 5 years prior to my mom, he was the one that put the wills together and appointed me executor. He pulled me aside at the ripe old age of 18 and told me he trusted me and wanted everything split 3 ways, no drama, no fighting. I could not control the fighting part but I could control the fairness part. His words rang through my brain and that was what I did.
@Finances_With_Purpose
... I am donating a portion of my estate to the Denver Dumb Friends League and The American Cancer Society.
None of my family will get a dime after the rest goes to my son. My friend will get some as well for taking care of everything.
@Finances_With_Purpose
... I am donating a portion of my estate to the Denver Dumb Friends League and The American Cancer Society.
None of my family will get a dime after the rest goes to my son. My friend will get some as well for taking care of everything.
I'll save others a google (like I had to do) - this is a group of pet shelters and medical centers in Colorado that have been around for over 100 years. I wasn't sure if this was a name you called your friend-group or what? Wish the "Our story" page on the website gave more info on how it came to be named this ... it doesn't appear to be anyone's last name...
@Finances_With_Purpose
... I am donating a portion of my estate to the Denver Dumb Friends League and The American Cancer Society.
None of my family will get a dime after the rest goes to my son. My friend will get some as well for taking care of everything.
I'll save others a google (like I had to do) - this is a group of pet shelters and medical centers in Colorado that have been around for over 100 years. I wasn't sure if this was a name you called your friend-group or what? Wish the "Our story" page on the website gave more info on how it came to be named this ... it doesn't appear to be anyone's last name...
Thank you for saving me a google :)
I guess it stems from the definition of "dumb" as "unable to speak", not stupid. The name certainly didn't age well...
My story in a nutshell, money makes people do crazy shit
All money does is magnify what's already there: for bad character, it's just a greater opportunity to do wrong. As they did to you. (And for good character, it's the opposite.)
[...]money doesn't make people do anything that they wouldn't already do. It just makes it easier.
I am curious: For those of you who've had to deal with crazy inheritance drama, was the crazy behaviour a bolt from the blue, brought into being as it were by the prospect of money? Or was is merely a larger-scale version of previous attitudes and patterns, magnified by the prospect of money?
None of the three of them have any intention of notifying their sister of their mom's death until AFTER the wedding.
None of the three of them have any intention of notifying their sister of their mom's death until AFTER the wedding.
Is this an autocorrect from will reading? Or did I miss something?
Oh , the Y2K scam, awesome in a very twisted way.
I spent Dec 31, 1999 in a suit, pushing a cart with wedding balloons and cake around a grocery store cleared out of canned goods. Best man for the wedding, since introduced them.
Wait, so you were an attendant for a Y2K wedding?Nope, except for being in a suit in a low class town grocery store. No drama.
I feel like there's more of a story there than you've already shared.
Thank you all for your kind words. It has taken me until this last year to just move past some of this and forgive my sister. I think the biggest part of my forgiveness though has revolved around the fact that I need to lower my expectations with her. Sadly, her character has left me with the type of relationship you have with a coworker, not the one we used to have.
Thank you all for your kind words. It has taken me until this last year to just move past some of this and forgive my sister. I think the biggest part of my forgiveness though has revolved around the fact that I need to lower my expectations with her. Sadly, her character has left me with the type of relationship you have with a coworker, not the one we used to have.
When it comes to forgiving someone who will not change his or her behavior, there are two necessary things. First, you have lowered your expectations. Not expecting her to change will save you a huge amount of time and stress. Second, you have put enough distance into the relationship for her behavior to not have a direct effect on you. From that position, it's easy to "forgive" in the sense of not pursuing her for revenge (which doesn't sound like your style anyway) and not investing any more thought or emotional energy into stewing over the initial offense.
Forgiveness doesn't mean you have to give the other person another opportunity to hurt you.
Thank you all for your kind words. It has taken me until this last year to just move past some of this and forgive my sister. I think the biggest part of my forgiveness though has revolved around the fact that I need to lower my expectations with her. Sadly, her character has left me with the type of relationship you have with a coworker, not the one we used to have.
When it comes to forgiving someone who will not change his or her behavior, there are two necessary things. First, you have lowered your expectations. Not expecting her to change will save you a huge amount of time and stress. Second, you have put enough distance into the relationship for her behavior to not have a direct effect on you. From that position, it's easy to "forgive" in the sense of not pursuing her for revenge (which doesn't sound like your style anyway) and not investing any more thought or emotional energy into stewing over the initial offense.
Forgiveness doesn't mean you have to give the other person another opportunity to hurt you.
Agree. Forgiveness is for your sake, so you don't carry around resentment that will only hurt you in the end. But it's wise not to forget and not to put yourself in any position with her where her character defect(s) can cause you further harm. It's sad that your relationship with her has been damaged, but she obviously doesn't care enough about that to take responsibility. Like Maya Angelou said, "When people show you who they are, believe them the first time."
Even though they have not even attempted to pay back the emotional debt - although it can never be repaid fully you could think of plenty of ways to start "repayments", first of all by acknowledging the existence of the debt - they are demanding "forgiveness" from me like I owe them something.
All money does is magnify what's already there: for bad character, it's just a greater opportunity to do wrong. As they did to you. (And for good character, it's the opposite.)
[...]money doesn't make people do anything that they wouldn't already do. It just makes it easier.
I am curious: For those of you who've had to deal with crazy inheritance drama, was the crazy behaviour a bolt from the blue, brought into being as it were by the prospect of money? Or was is merely a larger-scale version of previous attitudes and patterns, magnified by the prospect of money?
Magnification, in my experience, over and over again.
Now, there is once in a while an appearance that something is new when someone who had that kernel of a lout all along finally goes all in now that there's suddenly more to gain (e.g. the drunk who realizes that stealing will solve his financial problems caused by drinking), and folks who didn't know him/her well think it must have been the money, while folks who've known the person well aren't that surprised.
My family member is still angry with me though. Even though they have not even attempted to pay back the emotional debt - although it can never be repaid fully you could think of plenty of ways to start "repayments", first of all by acknowledging the existence of the debt - they are demanding "forgiveness" from me like I owe them something. I have forgiven them years and years ago. But "forgiveness" doesn't mean "everything is in the past, let's do what we always did'. It just means "I accept you cannot ever pay this back, so you don't have to and I'll be fine, and what happens to you is of no concern to me". When you forgive an actual loan you also don't have to go and lend money to that person again. You just have accepted that they aren't going to pay it back, and can either continue to see them or not. It's the same for an emotional debt.This is well said. I've been reading some comments here and there about Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears of late. Full disclosure: I don't know enough about either of them to know the full history, nor do I care to. But apparently, he's apologized.
So back to the box that of all the things his father owned, was the only thing he really made sure to give to his son while he was still alive. Bf opens the box, and what is in it?
Why, the wedding photos to the second wife. Not a long marriage, a few years, but he kept the photos for 25 years.
I am curious: For those of you who've had to deal with crazy inheritance drama, was the crazy behaviour a bolt from the blue, brought into being as it were by the prospect of money? Or was is merely a larger-scale version of previous attitudes and patterns, magnified by the prospect of money?
Great @livesimplecolorado . I got the sense that you had things together already, and I'm glad to hear that you do. And I meant no criticism, either: it is genuinely hard dealing with folks who behave in those ways. There's a reason that society often imprison people who act with that kind of disregard for others...
It's actually not surprising that there's so much hinkyness wtih inheritances, especially executors. There's been a lot of research done into fraud and what leads to it. It takes 3 basic things - pressure, opportunity, and justification. Being an executor is opportunity. Financial problems or just plain old grief are pressures. Justification - well, mommy loved me more so I deserve it/mommy loved me less so I deserve it etc work just fine. It's probably more surprising that there are any instances where there isn't fraud.
To answer your question, it was completely uncharacteristic. We had what appeared to be a decent relationship prior. There were some cracks in the relationship prior but nothing that made me think that this is what would happen.
As a matter of fact, when they were both appointed POA I trusted them completely. Never questioned any decisions.
The problem I think stemmed from the fact that they always seemed to have financial drama. I think the financial drama put them over the edge. I know my sister had some resentment towards me because my husband and I had money, a home, investments because she would complain to my mother all the time. However, she never realized how much we busted our hump to have anything. When my husband and I met we had nothing.
They always aspired to live above their means and seemed concerned with what others thought of them too. Who knows, like I said, money makes people do crazy shit.
Thank you, and I did not take it as criticism at all. If anything, after all these years, it has been a learning experience for me. For a long time, I grieved the relationship with my sister. But now, it feels honest. I looked at everything through rose-colored glasses with her. The reality was that she always looked down on me and my husband and I never saw it. My friend said once that she underestimated me, thought they could get away with all of it. Perhaps she thought i was less intelligent or "sloppy." Who knows.
She has always been, to put it charitably, the source of much hand wringing by our parents...
she had POA and then became executor..
To hear her tell it, she shouldered "all this responsibility", playing the martyr as opposed to me and my younger sister...
She has always been, to put it charitably, the source of much hand wringing by our parents...Pressureshe had POA and then became executor..OpportunityTo hear her tell it, she shouldered "all this responsibility", playing the martyr as opposed to me and my younger sister...Justification
Condolences that your sister is a thief who isn't above ripping off family and still emotionally abuses the family.
ZCP may be in order.
Lomonossov - I might count you lucky that you did not have any paper work connecting you to the property; much easier to walk away financially. Leaving family to there own mess can be hard.
Lomonossov - I might count you lucky that you did not have any paper work connecting you to the property; much easier to walk away financially. Leaving family to there own mess can be hard.
Yeah, in that sense I was at least able to cut the losses and don't have to be worried about the lack of maintenance or missing taxes.
The personal part is complicated, but if they just want to be in contact with me for my money I'd rather stop the relationship for the time being
Condolences that your sister is a thief who isn't above ripping off family and still emotionally abuses the family.
ZCP may be in order.
ZCP? Zero contact?
I think Zero Contact Protocol. Same difference, however.Condolences that your sister is a thief who isn't above ripping off family and still emotionally abuses the family.
ZCP may be in order.
ZCP? Zero contact?
Zero Contact Policy?
Now in the beginning, I was hoping that she would do the right thing, especially since her role was now a legal responsibility and that same responsibility would ensure she would do things properly.
Off topicNow in the beginning, I was hoping that she would do the right thing, especially since her role was now a legal responsibility and that same responsibility would ensure she would do things properly.
Having heard about estate drama with a number of friends who have endured it, I have come to realize that often you can predict how things are going to shake out. People who are morally "flexible" in everyday life will be just the same if an inheritance is involved. They brush off legalities because it's not fair, not what Dad/Mom would have wanted, I deserve, it's what's best, our situation is different... pick one or more.
The sibling who cheats on taxes, says it was a hit-and-run when they really drove into a pole, lies that their package wasn't delivered to get another one free, keeps the money from a wallet they found... that's who they are. And it won't be any different when an inheritance is involved with family.
Hi all,
After reading the full thread from cover to cover, I decided to tell my inheritance drama as well. It's been an expensive way to learn some lessons. Forget the probable grammar and spelling mistakes of this non-native speaker, if you will. Just another long story, but I hope you find it interesting.
My family, like every other family, doesn't work properly. Mine works a little bit worse than the average, though. My parents got married, divorced, remarried (with each other) again, redivorced and remarried (to other people). My mom got herself a third divorce from the unlucky guy who decided to marry her, my father is still hanging in there. From each of the marriages between themselves, a son was born: I have a smaller brother. I'm 33, he's 25.
Most of my childhood is defined by visit to courts about custody and pre and post-divorce arguments about money. The fact that my parents are not able to handle finances properly is what led to the divorce in the first place. All the estate they were ever able to put together was a very small flat where my brother and I lived, while they were coming and going through the years as a result of different custody agreements and court orders. Every time a new parent came, it brought along pets, couples and their new life. Nobody really cared about my brother and me, we were mostly the free ticket to living in the property.
Eventually, I found a job and left. I was in college and working full time to rent a bedroom, but I was so happy I never had to come back to that place that I didn't care about being poor. My brother was a teenager at the time, and was stuck in that flat. As a result of the last custody change, my father was responsible but he just had found the woman that would become his wife, and decided to move with her, which meant that my brother was living by himself when he was in his late teens. My father paid the mortgage of that flat and gave him a few euros each week for groceries. My brother stopped going to school, and the whole place looked like a heroin-addict place.
After I finished college and found myself a proper average-paying job in a Megacorp I decided to move to the flat and try to make it work. I cleaned and renovated the whole place with money out of my pocket, paid all the bills and taxes that were due and forced my brother to go to trade school. He hated me for it, but after several years of living like a bum he got some training in cooking and found himself a job. I kept paying for all the cost of living for the both of us except from the flat itself, since my parents had finalized paying for it in the meantime. This arrangement lasted around 5 years in total, until I decided to move to another country. I still was sending money to my brother each month to help him get by. Terrible mistake.
Fast forward a few years my mom decides to sell her half of the property to a third party that sues my father to go on auction for his half. After some negotiations and in order to keep my brother living there - since he's earning just enough to live and has no savings to rent anything - we find an agreement in which my father donated his half to my brother, and my brother got a mortgage for the other half, which he bough from the second party. As part of the arrangement, I agreed to pay for half of the mortgage w/o owning any property, since our local law does not allow resident and non-resident mortgages at the same time. In summary, I was paying for half of the flat without owning it on paper because "we all know and appreciate your contribution, and half of it it's yours regardless of papers". Second terrible mistake.
Last summer my brother calls me and tells me that his new girlfriend moved in, after that he informs me that all my memories from childhood (books, pictures, some family objects) were taken to the trash "since you didn't take them with you in all these years" and that he will mail me whatever he's not dumped. After thinking it through I replied that since obviously the arrangement was not honored and I was not free to use the flat to store my things I did not feel welcome anymore and I would stop contributing, I also said I would not expect any reimbursement from my previous contributions. This is the last conversation we had, and it was in August. My father has approached me to ask me to "fix things with your brother" because "you are doing very well in life and does not make a big difference for you" and "one day everything will be sorted on paper, but right now your brother needs a place to live".
Sadly this story has damaged permanently my already not very good relationship with my family and on top of that has costed me a ton of money over the years. I should have set boundaries a long time ago, but the next best time is right now, so I decided to stand and not concede. I'm getting married a few weeks from now and my brother, who was supposed to be my witness, will not attend. I want to think that is for the best.
Due to our local laws parent to child gifts should be discounted from the inheritance, so I have the right to fight for some of this money in court when my parents pass. I don't really count on any inheritance at all for my plans, anyway, and I will probably just forget about the whole thing and renounce to the remaining small spoils that will be there when my parents pass. It's just sad how mixing money and family is a recipe for disaster.
If you made it that far, thanks for reading my sob inheritance story!
Condolences that your sister is a thief who isn't above ripping off family and still emotionally abuses the family.
ZCP may be in order.
ZCP? Zero contact?
The sibling who cheats on taxes, says it was a hit-and-run when they really drove into a pole, lies that their package wasn't delivered to get another one free, keeps the money from a wallet they found... that's who they are. And it won't be any different when an inheritance is involved with family.
They brush off legalities because it's not fair, not what Dad/Mom would have wanted, I deserve, it's what's best, our situation is different.. pick one or more.
Wow, your sister and mine have a lot in common. At least mine wasn't the executor, but she did plenty of damage and was a general pain in the ass.
While I don't worry about my sister, I'm still temped to get disinherited to remove potential hassle. :-)Wow, your sister and mine have a lot in common. At least mine wasn't the executor, but she did plenty of damage and was a general pain in the ass.
Thank goodness my parents are preparing to sell their house this year and drastically downsize. A good chunk of potential "stuff" drama should be headed off. Not all, of course.
Financial accounts are already set up with beneficiaries, so that won't even go through the estate.
Wow, your sister and mine have a lot in common. At least mine wasn't the executor, but she did plenty of damage and was a general pain in the ass.
While I don't worry about my sister, I'm still temped to get disinherited to remove potential hassle. :-)
Wondering if your brother "neglected" to mention to his girlfriend that you were paying 1/2 the mortgage cost of the apartment and somehow he framed it as you just irresponsibly left your stuff there. In any case, he sounds pretty incredible to me. Someone gave him half an apartment and you were splitting the cost of the other half without living there and somehow he managed screw it up by being a jerk.
The big difference between us is that I spent a lot of money and time in therapy until I got rid of most of the hatred and reconciled with most of my childhood memories. My brother is still so angry for things that happened 10 or 15 years ago that thinks that all the Universe (including me, of course) owns him reparations for all his suffering. I tried to give him a hand for a very long time - monetary and otherwise - but I'm not responsible for him nor will I be dragged to that dark place full of "I did, you did, mom did, dad did" speech.
The big difference between us is that I spent a lot of money and time in therapy until I got rid of most of the hatred and reconciled with most of my childhood memories. My brother is still so angry for things that happened 10 or 15 years ago that thinks that all the Universe (including me, of course) owns him reparations for all his suffering. I tried to give him a hand for a very long time - monetary and otherwise - but I'm not responsible for him nor will I be dragged to that dark place full of "I did, you did, mom did, dad did" speech.
As someone in therapy right now, glad to hear that it helped you come to terms and move forward.
To the bolded: this is exactly executor sister. She is not only angry for past wrongs, real and perceived, done to her but she was so enmeshed with our parents, she is angry on their behalf, years after their passing. And she loves to do the "I did this, you did that, Mom said this, Dad said that". I don't know how someone can go through life being so angry. I understand being angry about things for the shorter term, but longer term (as in decades long which is what we are talking about here) or being mad on behalf of other people (who were less angry about the situation than you are and years ago), I don't get it.
As someone in therapy right now, glad to hear that it helped you come to terms and move forward.
To the bolded: this is exactly executor sister. She is not only angry for past wrongs, real and perceived, done to her but she was so enmeshed with our parents, she is angry on their behalf, years after their passing. And she loves to do the "I did this, you did that, Mom said this, Dad said that". I don't know how someone can go through life being so angry. I understand being angry about things for the shorter term, but longer term (as in decades long which is what we are talking about here) or being mad on behalf of other people (who were less angry about the situation than you are and years ago), I don't get it.
Living one’s life in victim mode makes it easier to justify bad behaviour. People give themselves a pass on decency because they’ve been hard done by and believe they deserve more than they got, so they’re taking whatever they can now. The thing is, no amount of “payment” now will undo past damage.
I don't get the impression that anyone's saying it's easy, just that it's very much worth doing. If you feel you're not getting what you "deserve", the path to change comes from within. Therapy is a great tool to help you construct a better narrative for the rest of your life.As someone in therapy right now, glad to hear that it helped you come to terms and move forward.
To the bolded: this is exactly executor sister. She is not only angry for past wrongs, real and perceived, done to her but she was so enmeshed with our parents, she is angry on their behalf, years after their passing. And she loves to do the "I did this, you did that, Mom said this, Dad said that". I don't know how someone can go through life being so angry. I understand being angry about things for the shorter term, but longer term (as in decades long which is what we are talking about here) or being mad on behalf of other people (who were less angry about the situation than you are and years ago), I don't get it.Living one’s life in victim mode makes it easier to justify bad behaviour. People give themselves a pass on decency because they’ve been hard done by and believe they deserve more than they got, so they’re taking whatever they can now. The thing is, no amount of “payment” now will undo past damage.
I don't think is a matter of easy vs. hard. All memories and past experiences define us as individuals. In my personal case I considered myself a victim of my childhood for a very long time, and it did not limit myself very much for all practical purposes: I had good friends, loving relationships and a decent career.
But there was (sometimes, there still is) an interior feeling of bitterness and anger that whispers "I did not deserve that, I should have been loved more, treated better". And, although you can live a normal adult life with that whispering inside you, and in fact most people do, it will limit the amount of happiness you can experience. I found out that sometimes it does trigger jealousy and envy about other people's happiness: since I deserve more than them, how come they can be happy and I cannot?
Is hard to let go such a significant part of our personal history and make the conscious decision of not letting your past define your present, get rid of that source of identity and stop playing that role in your present situations just because you were dragged into that behavior years or decades ago. Inertia is a powerful force of nature, once you're used to behave in a certain way and you know how to play that part it will take a significant amount of will to actively change that.
Yes. Farm inheritance stupidity here. Will give update later, but bottom line: no movement on inheritance due to 1recalcitrant sibling who has managed to postpone it cor a year, dragging principles into court. Of course, Covid shutdowns did not aid this process.
Does "upper 6 figure" salary mean $700,000+ annually?
What in the actual fuck could she possibly be doing with all that money that she needs a co-signer to buy a condo? Also I'd love to see the condo - imagine it is probably an amazing space in a major city somewhere.
My MIL inherited a share of a farm. I don't know all the details and I think she was pretty chill about it, just willing to take whatever was handed out, whenever. But it dragged on for years. She would get a check for her share of the soy bean crop, but the property wasn't sold for (I believe) a decade, not by the choice of her.
I think the big issue with farms is that often the sibling(s) who want to keep it can't afford to buy out the others, but most of the siblings don't want to keep it. So half wants to force a sale and the other half (or portion) wants to keep the farm but can't buy the other shares. And that creates tension and bad feelings and stress. If the estate happens to have enough other assets to offset at least most of the farm, it won't be an issue, but it seems that is rarely the case.
Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
Why do you want your money tied up in land you cannot sell?Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
Mom was one of 3 siblings, the middle one. My parents and her brother bought a 2nd farm with her dad. When her parents died the original farm was organized into a partnership with ownership split evenly 3 ways. The 2nd farm was organized into a second partnership and split 50-50.
Brother was very business savvy plus he lived closest to the farm so he ran the businesses. He found farm families in the area to farm the land in a sharecropping arrangement. Those sharecropping arrangements have been running on a handshake basis for over 50 years with nary a problem. That's pretty awesome.
My mom was the first of the 3 siblings to pass (my dad having passed away 5 years earlier), so I inherited her 1/3rd of the original farm and her 1/2 of the 2nd farm. My uncle (her brother) knew what he was doing so I just left things as they were. My uncle had taught his son (my cousin) the business and my cousin had taught his son so succession planning was in place.
My uncle passed away about 2 years ago. We're now in the process of changing the partnerships to a regular corporate form with a corporate manager instead. We want to do that because as the number of partners increases, the harder it is to get in touch with everyone. Plus, legally, if a partner agrees to something for the partnership the other partners just agreed to it to, whether they wanted to or not. That's just a problem that is bound to happen eventually -- possibly within my generation after my uncle's wife and my aunt die. :( I want that liability locked down before 2 of my 6 cousins are in the partnership (and so do their brothers and sisters, so it's not just me).
I should be receiving a draft of the agreement to review within a week or so. :)
Things that should be in it are options for first refusal among family members if someone wants to sell their share of the farm and how much the corporate manager can spend/commit to without owner approval.
So, happily, the only sad drama is that my uncle and my parents passed away. We're hoping we can keep it that way.
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
Why do you want your money tied up in land you cannot sell?Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
Mom was one of 3 siblings, the middle one. My parents and her brother bought a 2nd farm with her dad. When her parents died the original farm was organized into a partnership with ownership split evenly 3 ways. The 2nd farm was organized into a second partnership and split 50-50.
Brother was very business savvy plus he lived closest to the farm so he ran the businesses. He found farm families in the area to farm the land in a sharecropping arrangement. Those sharecropping arrangements have been running on a handshake basis for over 50 years with nary a problem. That's pretty awesome.
My mom was the first of the 3 siblings to pass (my dad having passed away 5 years earlier), so I inherited her 1/3rd of the original farm and her 1/2 of the 2nd farm. My uncle (her brother) knew what he was doing so I just left things as they were. My uncle had taught his son (my cousin) the business and my cousin had taught his son so succession planning was in place.
My uncle passed away about 2 years ago. We're now in the process of changing the partnerships to a regular corporate form with a corporate manager instead. We want to do that because as the number of partners increases, the harder it is to get in touch with everyone. Plus, legally, if a partner agrees to something for the partnership the other partners just agreed to it to, whether they wanted to or not. That's just a problem that is bound to happen eventually -- possibly within my generation after my uncle's wife and my aunt die. :( I want that liability locked down before 2 of my 6 cousins are in the partnership (and so do their brothers and sisters, so it's not just me).
I should be receiving a draft of the agreement to review within a week or so. :)
Things that should be in it are options for first refusal among family members if someone wants to sell their share of the farm and how much the corporate manager can spend/commit to without owner approval.
So, happily, the only sad drama is that my uncle and my parents passed away. We're hoping we can keep it that way.
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
Mom was one of 3 siblings, the middle one. My parents and her brother bought a 2nd farm with her dad. When her parents died the original farm was organized into a partnership with ownership split evenly 3 ways. The 2nd farm was organized into a second partnership and split 50-50.
Brother was very business savvy plus he lived closest to the farm so he ran the businesses. He found farm families in the area to farm the land in a sharecropping arrangement. Those sharecropping arrangements have been running on a handshake basis for over 50 years with nary a problem. That's pretty awesome.
My mom was the first of the 3 siblings to pass (my dad having passed away 5 years earlier), so I inherited her 1/3rd of the original farm and her 1/2 of the 2nd farm. My uncle (her brother) knew what he was doing so I just left things as they were. My uncle had taught his son (my cousin) the business and my cousin had taught his son so succession planning was in place.
My uncle passed away about 2 years ago. We're now in the process of changing the partnerships to a regular corporate form with a corporate manager instead. We want to do that because as the number of partners increases, the harder it is to get in touch with everyone. Plus, legally, if a partner agrees to something for the partnership the other partners just agreed to it to, whether they wanted to or not. That's just a problem that is bound to happen eventually -- possibly within my generation after my uncle's wife and my aunt die. :( I want that liability locked down before 2 of my 6 cousins are in the partnership (and so do their brothers and sisters, so it's not just me).
I should be receiving a draft of the agreement to review within a week or so. :)
Things that should be in it are options for first refusal among family members if someone wants to sell their share of the farm and how much the corporate manager can spend/commit to without owner approval.
So, happily, the only sad drama is that my uncle and my parents passed away. We're hoping we can keep it that way.
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
Even if it's technically out of place on this thread, I can honestly say I'm very happy to read about a proactive, amicable plan. :-)
It sounds as though Rick is thoroughly plugged in to local society and has good paying clients lined up. I'd be careful of passing that up in order to get who knows off the internet. I certainly wouldn't do it without getting in touch with Rick first to see if he wanted to carry on - in a rural community that isn't a good look to starting managing a property.Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
Mom was one of 3 siblings, the middle one. My parents and her brother bought a 2nd farm with her dad. When her parents died the original farm was organized into a partnership with ownership split evenly 3 ways. The 2nd farm was organized into a second partnership and split 50-50.
Brother was very business savvy plus he lived closest to the farm so he ran the businesses. He found farm families in the area to farm the land in a sharecropping arrangement. Those sharecropping arrangements have been running on a handshake basis for over 50 years with nary a problem. That's pretty awesome.
My mom was the first of the 3 siblings to pass (my dad having passed away 5 years earlier), so I inherited her 1/3rd of the original farm and her 1/2 of the 2nd farm. My uncle (her brother) knew what he was doing so I just left things as they were. My uncle had taught his son (my cousin) the business and my cousin had taught his son so succession planning was in place.
My uncle passed away about 2 years ago. We're now in the process of changing the partnerships to a regular corporate form with a corporate manager instead. We want to do that because as the number of partners increases, the harder it is to get in touch with everyone. Plus, legally, if a partner agrees to something for the partnership the other partners just agreed to it to, whether they wanted to or not. That's just a problem that is bound to happen eventually -- possibly within my generation after my uncle's wife and my aunt die. :( I want that liability locked down before 2 of my 6 cousins are in the partnership (and so do their brothers and sisters, so it's not just me).
I should be receiving a draft of the agreement to review within a week or so. :)
Things that should be in it are options for first refusal among family members if someone wants to sell their share of the farm and how much the corporate manager can spend/commit to without owner approval.
So, happily, the only sad drama is that my uncle and my parents passed away. We're hoping we can keep it that way.
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
That's great that the farm has stayed in the family, is making money, and there is no drama involved!
Those handshake deals always make me laugh! One example from my FIL is that he rents out some of his pasture to hunters every year. We asked him, "how do you find hunters that want to pay for the rights to hunt on it", his answer was "call Rick, but he's about 80 years old, doesn't hear well, only has a home phone, doesn't have an answering machine, and sometimes doesn't answer his phone at all, but he always has hunters lined up".
All the kids and in laws were just kind of stunned, like uh, ok, sure, we'll probably just put it on some website or something, but thanks.
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks....Hehehe, I see what you did there! :)
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks....Hehehe, I see what you did there! :)
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets.That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.OTOH, I would bet most first-time buyers purchase homes far in excess of their net worth. However, the couple you know of have significantly higher Q Scores than your average home buyer.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets. That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
are you suggesting I dont personally know this young couple?I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.OTOH, I would bet most first-time buyers purchase homes far in excess of their net worth. However, the couple you know of have significantly higher Q Scores than your average home buyer.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets. That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets.That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Has this young couple recently been interviewed by Oprah by any chance?
Biting the hand that feeds you is always a bad idea.
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets.That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Has this young couple recently been interviewed by Oprah by any chance?
Biting the hand that feeds you is always a bad idea.
Interesting, as I look at it more like a case study in what you can do when you have FU money. That hand no longer feeds them, and they are going to be just fine.
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets.That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Has this young couple recently been interviewed by Oprah by any chance?
Biting the hand that feeds you is always a bad idea.
I was thinking it was a couple in the kardashian orbit.I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets.That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Has this young couple recently been interviewed by Oprah by any chance?
Biting the hand that feeds you is always a bad idea.
Thanks for the hint. I was lost.
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets.That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Has this young couple recently been interviewed by Oprah by any chance?
Biting the hand that feeds you is always a bad idea.
Interesting, as I look at it more like a case study in what you can do when you have FU money. That hand no longer feeds them, and they are going to be just fine.
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
Even if it's technically out of place on this thread, I can honestly say I'm very happy to read about a proactive, amicable plan. :-)
Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
Counterpoint: giving the interview in which they see these things is part of the strategy for monetizing their fame since they do not have access to much of the family money anymore.
Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
I have some that I posted maybe ~40 pages back. Here's the simplified version to keep it short.
My grandfather had three kids and three pieces of property. He had 2x cattle ranches in CA that are about 200 acres each and a house in the local city. Instead of giving one property to each child, every property got split 3 ways.
Now my mom lives in the house and her brothers live on a ranch of their own. Since it's jointly owned, they all pay rent to each other and pay out ranch income. I've never figured out how they allocate income since it's technically owned 1/3 each way, but each ranch has one person doing all the labor. I know the ranches don't make much money.
About a decade ago, the family enters into a business deal to sell a conservation easement on a separate property owned by one brothers second wife. No one ever told me the full story, but I know that somehow my mom now owns half of this new property and the new wife sued the other brother over the deal. Being ranchers, no one ever talked about this. They just stopped talking to each other. Yet they still pay each other rent.
I'm now set to inherit 1/6 of each property eventually. I've talked to my mom about changing it so that me and my brother can inherit the house and our cousins can inherit the property that their parents live on. Unfortunately my mom has zero interest in this. She enjoys having a partial ownership stake in the ranch.
I'm not sure what I'll do when I inherit this mess. I have zero interest in owning a 1/6 stake in a ranch. None of the other family members have the funds to buy anyone else out. I also remain irrationally angry at one of my uncles over a property purchase I tried to make from the family (this is a different story). Part of me wants to force a sale of something just to get out of it. But I know this would destroy my relationship with all of my uncles and cousins.
Counterpoint: giving the interview in which they see these things is part of the strategy for monetizing their fame since they do not have access to much of the family money anymore.As a strategy for monetizing theor fame, I think it's very effective, but as a strategy for garnering sympathy, not so much.
I kind have a hard time to sympatize with someone that wants to be independent but then complains of daddy cutting of the money supply. Add to that they seem to be complaining about the media coverage and wanting to live a normal life but then go on Oprah to pump up the interest to further monetize their public personas.
There's something deeply ironic about getting Oprah to help them tell the world about how awful the media are for violating their privacy.
I heard their location in Vancouver was released, and due to the family pulling security away from them, they wanted to find a new location with security.
They are proposing to make money to support their lifestyle (£5 million last year, apparently, even with help on their accommodation) through media deals. And Meghan's chosen profession of actress has always been open to media scrutiny. A quiet life living privately within their means was always unlikely.I heard their location in Vancouver was released, and due to the family pulling security away from them, they wanted to find a new location with security.
No, their location was known pretty much in the first week. I don't live that far away. The locals were pretty respectful, though, even going to the point of not helping the international media that descended to ask questions and take pictures.
I do have some empathy for their problems, but deciding to go for Oprah-type publicity is a decision I wouldn't have made. You are either in the public eye or you aren't. There is no half-way. Personally, I think they might come to regret going back into the madness of media scrutiny.
Like most Norwegians, I am against monarchy on principle, but think Harald does a decent job (for instance with this speech: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/king-harald-norway-diversity-speech). We can always discuss the amount of money we spend on them, but as long as they also contribute some of their own (inherited) money to take care of the royal castle and other national heritage sites, I don't mind as much. Having a president instead would also be expensive. If the next generation of our royal family doesn't want the job, then I hope they simply and quietly quit. There is no need to slam the door on the way out.
Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
I have some that I posted maybe ~40 pages back. Here's the simplified version to keep it short.
My grandfather had three kids and three pieces of property. He had 2x cattle ranches in CA that are about 200 acres each and a house in the local city. Instead of giving one property to each child, every property got split 3 ways.
Now my mom lives in the house and her brothers live on a ranch of their own. Since it's jointly owned, they all pay rent to each other and pay out ranch income. I've never figured out how they allocate income since it's technically owned 1/3 each way, but each ranch has one person doing all the labor. I know the ranches don't make much money.
About a decade ago, the family enters into a business deal to sell a conservation easement on a separate property owned by one brothers second wife. No one ever told me the full story, but I know that somehow my mom now owns half of this new property and the new wife sued the other brother over the deal. Being ranchers, no one ever talked about this. They just stopped talking to each other. Yet they still pay each other rent.
I'm now set to inherit 1/6 of each property eventually. I've talked to my mom about changing it so that me and my brother can inherit the house and our cousins can inherit the property that their parents live on. Unfortunately my mom has zero interest in this. She enjoys having a partial ownership stake in the ranch.
I'm not sure what I'll do when I inherit this mess. I have zero interest in owning a 1/6 stake in a ranch. None of the other family members have the funds to buy anyone else out. I also remain irrationally angry at one of my uncles over a property purchase I tried to make from the family (this is a different story). Part of me wants to force a sale of something just to get out of it. But I know this would destroy my relationship with all of my uncles and cousins.
One of the reasons we want to do all this legal stuff is that people would not be inheriting partial ownership of LAND, they would be inheriting partial ownership of a corporation. That way, no one can force anyone to sell. They would be able to sell to outsiders as long as no family members would meet the price. That way, they can get their money out if they want to. At some point folks may decide it's better to sell the entire corporation to some mega-corporation because it's not worth the hassle. Right now, my 1/3rd and 1/2 share is worth $20k to $25k a year. (I budget for $20k in my income projections.)
I was an only child. My mom's siblings each had 3 kids, so their share would be 1/9th and 1/6th (or 1/9th and 0/6ths). Two more generations and it won't be that much money per share. Except in my branch of the family; my daughter will inherit the income rights but my son will inherit my share of the farm, so it will take another generation before my share gets diluted 3 ways (3 grandkids).
$6-8k is still solid money to help middle class folks jump-start their savings or their schooling.
When you get down to $1k or $2k, not so much. At that point it probably won't be worth a family member's time to manage things for everyone else and it would make far more sense to sell.
As for me, I like having a source of income that's in the $20k to $25k range that's uncorrelated to stocks, bonds, social security or rental houses in a different state. :) And for that I have my grand parents to thank for it. They were smart, hardworking, good hearted folks who passed that on to their kids. They didn't have much money during the depression but they made it thru with their farm intact.
My grandfather was very smart fellow. The local mill and grain silo company had been in the same local family for some generations. Millers tend to be wealthier than farmers because they get a cut of all the farmer's income. I don't know how much you know about small town or small rural areas. It's not uncommon for someone really hard-working and sharp to make a lot of money and become important in their small area. Their kids partially grew up as regular kids so they have a lot of the traits their parents have. But the 3rd and 4th generation are often ignorant, lazy and feel more entitled than the mythical Reagan welfare queen. They grow up being "important people" and never really have to develop their abilities to provide for themselves. Once they take over they often run the business into the ground and spend themselves broke.
The millers in that area were in the 3rd or 4th generation and had all the bad qualities I just described. My grandfather had received a very large check from them for his grain (minus their cut for the work, of course). The check bounced.
Because he paid attention and knew people, he found out that other checks had bounced. This is back before computers checked the balance right away, etc. So if you needed a bit of float in your account, you could play some games. Let's say the millers had $10,000 in their account. If they wrote an $11,000 check it would bounce, but it looked to whomever was processing it to be a simple mistake instead of a fraudulent check. If they wrote several such checks, each would look, to whichever teller processed it, to be a simple mistake.
My grandfather realized that there were more serious problems than just a simple oops. So he went to the bank and asked how much they had in the bank account. His feeling was that $10,000 out of $11,000 was better than $0 out of $11,000, so maybe he could just get what they had instead of what they owed. The bank teller shook her head no and explained they weren't allowed to reveal that information.
My grandfather thought for a moment, then asked, "If I were to deposit $100 in the account, would there be enough to cash this check?"
The teller looked at him, thought about the rules, and said, "No--o--o--o--o..."
"How about $200?"
A few hundred dollars deposited into their account later, he walked out with as much of his money as they had. Other folks ended up getting bupkis.
My grandfather was very smart fellow. The local mill and grain silo company had been in the same local family for some generations. Millers tend to be wealthier than farmers because they get a cut of all the farmer's income. I don't know how much you know about small town or small rural areas. It's not uncommon for someone really hard-working and sharp to make a lot of money and become important in their small area. Their kids partially grew up as regular kids so they have a lot of the traits their parents have. But the 3rd and 4th generation are often ignorant, lazy and feel more entitled than the mythical Reagan welfare queen. They grow up being "important people" and never really have to develop their abilities to provide for themselves. Once they take over they often run the business into the ground and spend themselves broke.
The millers in that area were in the 3rd or 4th generation and had all the bad qualities I just described. My grandfather had received a very large check from them for his grain (minus their cut for the work, of course). The check bounced.
Because he paid attention and knew people, he found out that other checks had bounced. This is back before computers checked the balance right away, etc. So if you needed a bit of float in your account, you could play some games. Let's say the millers had $10,000 in their account. If they wrote an $11,000 check it would bounce, but it looked to whomever was processing it to be a simple mistake instead of a fraudulent check. If they wrote several such checks, each would look, to whichever teller processed it, to be a simple mistake.
My grandfather realized that there were more serious problems than just a simple oops. So he went to the bank and asked how much they had in the bank account. His feeling was that $10,000 out of $11,000 was better than $0 out of $11,000, so maybe he could just get what they had instead of what they owed. The bank teller shook her head no and explained they weren't allowed to reveal that information.
My grandfather thought for a moment, then asked, "If I were to deposit $100 in the account, would there be enough to cash this check?"
The teller looked at him, thought about the rules, and said, "No--o--o--o--o..."
"How about $200?"
A few hundred dollars deposited into their account later, he walked out with as much of his money as they had. Other folks ended up getting bupkis.
"The idea of spending 5 million or more to live on in a year is just crazy to me."You'd probably need security 24/7. Crazy people don't necessarily follow business hours.
Google says security guards can cost 75 to 150$/hr; 100$/hr*40hr/wk*52wk/year -> 208k/year. Would guess they have at least five so that is +1 million right there, then add in a few personal assistants. Then when you travel you have to fly privet (30k$/flight hr) + everyone needs a hotel room etc. So yeah I could see things adding up quickly, even if they are not drinking 500 bottles of wine with dinner nightly.
"The idea of spending 5 million or more to live on in a year is just crazy to me."You'd probably need security 24/7. Crazy people don't necessarily follow business hours.
Google says security guards can cost 75 to 150$/hr; 100$/hr*40hr/wk*52wk/year -> 208k/year. Would guess they have at least five so that is +1 million right there, then add in a few personal assistants. Then when you travel you have to fly privet (30k$/flight hr) + everyone needs a hotel room etc. So yeah I could see things adding up quickly, even if they are not drinking 500 bottles of wine with dinner nightly.
But $30k per flight hour is excessive--that's military fighter and bomber prices.
I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them. Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them? And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered? For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.
They are now living in Santa Barbara California.
He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them. Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them? And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered? For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.
They are now living in Santa Barbara California.
Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson. So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.
Ah, right, he's just the heir to a Dukedom instead of becoming a Prince. My bad.He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them. Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them? And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered? For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.
They are now living in Santa Barbara California.
Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson. So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.
I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way. Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses. Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).
Ah, right, he's just the heir to a Dukedom instead of becoming a Prince. My bad.He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them. Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them? And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered? For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.
They are now living in Santa Barbara California.
Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson. So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.
I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way. Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses. Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).
Ah, right, he's just the heir to a Dukedom instead of becoming a Prince. My bad.He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them. Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them? And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered? For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.
They are now living in Santa Barbara California.
Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson. So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.
I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way. Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses. Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).
Does he actually inherit a dukedom? I thought the titels were only an honorary thing. Here, they get a duchesse or duke title but that does not come with castles or land as they did a couple of hundreds of years ago. It only means a bit more ribboncutting in that specific part of the country.
Just like Plina explaind from Sweden, Norway also has a princess who didn't want to be princess anymore. As long as she doesn't stir any trouble, she is left alone. There have been some issues of her trying to profit from her titles, and now she has been stripped of them. There was also an issue when she started dating an American self proclaimed shaman. Was some if it racism: no doubt. But 90 % of the backlash was from her promoting a misogynist charlatan to the Norwegian audience, and them trying to make money by basically defrauding people. Her attempts at making money are not going very well, so she has started selling some of her inherited property. Her children never had titles . They are at the same place as UK's Archie, and titles are not normal that far out in the inheritance list. In all likelyhood, they will silently disappear from the limelight and get normal jobs. I think some of the current crown prince's first cousins are selling trucks and running clothes stores, but they have never made an appearance in the newspapers, so I don't really know.
Royalty is a shit job. It might pay well, but otherwise it is just a glorified public servant role with no true power. If it is true that Megan didn't prepare at all, and Harry declined help to prepare her, then it is no wonder everything blew up. Sure, there is plenty of racism in the royal family. Sure, they probably have an extremely shit HR department. But M&H very clearly did not want to do their jobs.
Like most Norwegians, I am against monarchy on principle, but think Harald does a decent job (for instance with this speech: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/king-harald-norway-diversity-speech). We can always discuss the amount of money we spend on them, but as long as they also contribute some of their own (inherited) money to take care of the royal castle and other national heritage sites, I don't mind as much. Having a president instead would also be expensive. If the next generation of our royal family doesn't want the job, then I hope they simply and quietly quit. There is no need to slam the door on the way out.
I don't believe for a minute that they want to live normal lives, unless by "normal" they mean "extraordinarily privileged and unencumbered by any obligation."
There's something deeply ironic about getting Oprah to help them tell the world about how awful the media are for violating their privacy.
Ah, right, he's just the heir to a Dukedom instead of becoming a Prince. My bad.He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them. Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them? And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered? For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.
They are now living in Santa Barbara California.
Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson. So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.
I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way. Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses. Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).
I don't believe for a minute that they want to live normal lives, unless by "normal" they mean "extraordinarily privileged and unencumbered by any obligation."
There's something deeply ironic about getting Oprah to help them tell the world about how awful the media are for violating their privacy.
They literally can't live normal lives unless they want the kids (and possibly themselves) at very high risk for kidnapping or worse. They are at a level of fame where full-time security and a secure household location is a requirement.
Serious question:
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
Don't actually discount the cutting ribbons stuff either. Very often that is just the publicity icing on a long-term interest and involvement in a cause that wouldn't be happening, or wouldn't be happening on the same scale, without the push of royal involvement. Which is a big regret to me in Meghan deciding to leave the UK Royal family - her scope to influence for the better in the decades to come was enormous, if she had put in the work behind the scenes.Serious question:
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
Is that specific to the British royal family? People in here are just as interested in all the other royal houses, like those of say, Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Spain. I do feel that in the older generation especially there's an appreciation for Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip because of their actions in the War. The free UK, it's royal family and the Allied forces were a beacon of hope to Europeans. I know my late grandparents appreciated them very much because they shared the same experience of working on the home front (like the future Queen) and being in the military (like the future Duke). The Queen became a symbol of the postwar era.
I disagree by the way that royals "do nothing". They are head of state, much like your President. They are not elected and they don't make the political decisions, but do not underestimate their influence. They are basically our countries' top diplomats. Royals forge trade connections, they solve international disagreements and they certainly do influence policy up to a certain degree. They don't spend their days cutting ribbons.
Serious question:
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
Serious question:I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits also
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
In the USA, it's definitely all about the house of Windsor. Some of the same people obsess about the latest UK royal drama would be hard pressed to even tell you which other (European) countries have royal families, much less naming their members.Serious question:
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
Is that specific to the British royal family? People in here are just as interested in all the other royal houses, like those of say, Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Spain. I do feel that in the older generation especially there's an appreciation for Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip because of their actions in the War. The free UK, it's royal family and the Allied forces were a beacon of hope to Europeans. I know my late grandparents appreciated them very much because they shared the same experience of working on the home front (like the future Queen) and being in the military (like the future Duke). The Queen became a symbol of the postwar era.
I disagree by the way that royals "do nothing". They are head of state, much like your President. They are not elected and they don't make the political decisions, but do not underestimate their influence. They are basically our countries' top diplomats. Royals forge trade connections, they solve international disagreements and they certainly do influence policy up to a certain degree. They don't spend their days cutting ribbons.
Serious question:I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits also
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.despisedislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!
In the USA, it's definitely all about the house of Windsor. Some of the same people obsess about the latest UK royal drama would be hard pressed to even tell you which other (European) countries have royal families, much less naming their members.
I think it's just natural for the English-speaking former colonies to focus on the English/UK royalty for historical reasons. Even though the US has been independent for longer than "Commonwealth" countries like Canada, and more forcefully so, we still have a fascination with where we "came from" as a country. And with the pomp & circumstance of the old monarchy.
Serious question:
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
Serious question:
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
I wouldn’t be averse to the royal family becoming obsolete after Charles (if he ever becomes king). Royalty is an anachronism in this day and age, and the younger royals are capable of earning their keep, so why waste taxpayer money on them? They’ve never meant anything to me beyond pretty weddings.
It's finding an alternative which is the problem. Either the PM becomes Head of State as well (and there's just been an example of that going badly wrong in the USA) or a new form of elected President has to be invented which would be almost impossible to keep out of politics.I wouldn’t be averse to the royal family becoming obsolete after Charles (if he ever becomes king). Royalty is an anachronism in this day and age, and the younger royals are capable of earning their keep, so why waste taxpayer money on them? They’ve never meant anything to me beyond pretty weddings.
Don't underestimate the soft power Britain gains from them. A state banquet with the Queen or King of England is something that appeals very strongly to the vanity of various presidents around the world and gets our PM an in with them while they are here.
Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy to be rid of them if anyone can come up with a better alternative.
Serious question:I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits also
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.despisedislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!
Serious question:I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits also
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.despisedislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!
Be fair - as an American she wouldn't even know what petrol is!
/s (as an American)
It's finding an alternative which is the problem. Either the PM becomes Head of State as well (and there's just been an example of that going badly wrong in the USA) or a new form of elected President has to be invented which would be almost impossible to keep out of politics.I wouldn’t be averse to the royal family becoming obsolete after Charles (if he ever becomes king). Royalty is an anachronism in this day and age, and the younger royals are capable of earning their keep, so why waste taxpayer money on them? They’ve never meant anything to me beyond pretty weddings.
Don't underestimate the soft power Britain gains from them. A state banquet with the Queen or King of England is something that appeals very strongly to the vanity of various presidents around the world and gets our PM an in with them while they are here.
Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy to be rid of them if anyone can come up with a better alternative.
One of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy is that it fills a position of power without being able to exercise any of that power: there is no vacuum into which bad actors can insert themselves and the Prime Minister, who does exercise power, always has someone above them in the hierarchy to whom they have to answer, even if only formally.
The Church of England does much the same for the UK: it occupies a central spiritual space, preventing anyone else from taking that over either religiously or politically (see eg: Irish Catholicism, USA evangelism), and because its status is legally defined it has no need to define itself by a narrow and/or exclusionary creed, making it inclusive of anyone who wants to participate and also being able (slowly) adapt to societal change.
You can't change the people around you but you can change the people around you.
I don't care how unprepared someone was for a role, if someone is SUICIDAL and they are denied mental health treatment, that is WRONG. Full stop. No excuses. None. Nada. Zip.If that were true I would agree with you. But -
So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.
I don't care how unprepared someone was for a role, if someone is SUICIDAL and they are denied mental health treatment, that is WRONG. Full stop. No excuses. None. Nada. Zip.If that were true I would agree with you. But -
So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.
1) "Thoughts of suicide" is not the same as "suicidal". I can think rationally about potential methods of suicide without having any intention of doing anything about them.
2) Meghan is a grown woman with large amounts of money and direct access to anyone in the world she wanted to call, including any heath care professional - who would have been under a duty of confidentiality. I agree she was in a foreign country but she spoke the language and no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to. Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.
Unfortunately the interview by Oprah had so little rigour to it and so little follow up to what was said. It's possible to completely accept everything Meghan said in it and still not be certain of an objective truth.
... no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to. Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.
I don't care how unprepared someone was for a role, if someone is SUICIDAL and they are denied mental health treatment, that is WRONG. Full stop. No excuses. None. Nada. Zip.
So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.
I don't care how unprepared someone was for a role, if someone is SUICIDAL and they are denied mental health treatment, that is WRONG. Full stop. No excuses. None. Nada. Zip.
So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.
I broke down and watched the interview because it was a topic of conversation among the friend-group text string.
All of the stuff about how she was unprepared, how she didn't realize one actually curtsied to the queen in private, etc. just made me think less of Harry. (Well, part of me was skeptical it was true, but the other part blamed Harry.) He was the one who was part of that culture. He knew to at least some large extent what would be expected of her. He had the people he could ask questions of or put her in touch with.
But somehow it is her fault? If you invite me to a party and I show up in jeans and it turns out it was a formal even and you failed to mention that, you are far more in the wrong for not telling me than I am for not asking about the dress code.
She had authority over her own and Harry's staff and power to ignore any other staff.
... no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to. Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.
You're wrong on two counts here:
1) She does not supervise palace staff. She has no line of authority, and no power in that chain of command.
2) The palace *took her passport* when she moved in. She could not "go anywhere in the world she wanted to go to."
She had authority over her own and Harry's staff and power to ignore any other staff.
... no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to. Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.
You're wrong on two counts here:
1) She does not supervise palace staff. She has no line of authority, and no power in that chain of command.
2) The palace *took her passport* when she moved in. She could not "go anywhere in the world she wanted to go to."
We have no indication that she wanted to make use of her passport and was refused or asked for it back and was refused.
I'm not saying she didn't get herself into a difficult position, or that she didn't find herself unable to cope with it. But she wasn't a naive 20 year old whose family arranged her marriage. She was a high-earning 36 year old woman with a previous marriage, a previous celebrity relationship and a decent amount of personal wealth that she earned herself. She had a loving and supportive spouse. She had options.
I'm sorry if I misred her statements about suicide.
OK, I can accept that view. According to her interview with Oprah she still feels the same way about that time now as she did at the time, so I hope that doesn't mean she hasn't come out of that illness.She had authority over her own and Harry's staff and power to ignore any other staff.
... no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to. Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.
You're wrong on two counts here:
1) She does not supervise palace staff. She has no line of authority, and no power in that chain of command.
2) The palace *took her passport* when she moved in. She could not "go anywhere in the world she wanted to go to."
We have no indication that she wanted to make use of her passport and was refused or asked for it back and was refused.
I'm not saying she didn't get herself into a difficult position, or that she didn't find herself unable to cope with it. But she wasn't a naive 20 year old whose family arranged her marriage. She was a high-earning 36 year old woman with a previous marriage, a previous celebrity relationship and a decent amount of personal wealth that she earned herself. She had a loving and supportive spouse. She had options.
I'm sorry if I misred her statements about suicide.
And mental illness is EXACTLY the kind of thing that will negate everything you just said. That is why its so terrible. Because instead of being a mature, strong person, it can make you weak and vulnerable, regardless of what the objective reality is. The fact that she had a loving and supportive spouse is probably why she's still alive. The fact that she had personal wealth is probably a big chunk of how they were able to get out of what was a toxic situation for her.
I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits alsodespisedislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!
Unless there is a jubilee to celebrate or one of the turns up to open a new building, it's likely that most British children will hear little if anything about the monarchy from their schooling. We don't have daily pledges of allegiance to the flag or anything like that. British support for the Royal Family is largely based on our deep dislike for our politicians such that the thought of replacing the Queen with a politician is enough to make us stick with what we've got - as long as they don't muck it up.
The general reaction to Harry marrying Meghan was overwhelmingly positive. People thought he was definitely batting above his average and most of us liked what her being of mixed race signaled about us as a modern, tolerant country. It's just a shame that neither of them seemed to have properly read the job description in advance.
Worse still for me is WHO might replace them - President Blair ? No thank you..We have lots of ex-Presidents that we could
OK, I can accept that view. According to her interview with Oprah she still feels the same way about that time now as she did at the time, so I hope that doesn't mean she hasn't come out of that illness.She had authority over her own and Harry's staff and power to ignore any other staff.
... no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to. Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.
You're wrong on two counts here:
1) She does not supervise palace staff. She has no line of authority, and no power in that chain of command.
2) The palace *took her passport* when she moved in. She could not "go anywhere in the world she wanted to go to."
We have no indication that she wanted to make use of her passport and was refused or asked for it back and was refused.
I'm not saying she didn't get herself into a difficult position, or that she didn't find herself unable to cope with it. But she wasn't a naive 20 year old whose family arranged her marriage. She was a high-earning 36 year old woman with a previous marriage, a previous celebrity relationship and a decent amount of personal wealth that she earned herself. She had a loving and supportive spouse. She had options.
I'm sorry if I misred her statements about suicide.
And mental illness is EXACTLY the kind of thing that will negate everything you just said. That is why its so terrible. Because instead of being a mature, strong person, it can make you weak and vulnerable, regardless of what the objective reality is. The fact that she had a loving and supportive spouse is probably why she's still alive. The fact that she had personal wealth is probably a big chunk of how they were able to get out of what was a toxic situation for her.
I wonder if it's age specific. I heard this from an older Brit. Then when Sharon Osbourne defended Piers Morgan's right to have an opinion, she expressed something similar. Of course, I hear she's in a ton of hot water now for defending PM, so who the hell knows?I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits alsodespisedislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!
Unless there is a jubilee to celebrate or one of the turns up to open a new building, it's likely that most British children will hear little if anything about the monarchy from their schooling. We don't have daily pledges of allegiance to the flag or anything like that. British support for the Royal Family is largely based on our deep dislike for our politicians such that the thought of replacing the Queen with a politician is enough to make us stick with what we've got - as long as they don't muck it up.
The general reaction to Harry marrying Meghan was overwhelmingly positive. People thought he was definitely batting above his average and most of us liked what her being of mixed race signaled about us as a modern, tolerant country. It's just a shame that neither of them seemed to have properly read the job description in advance.
Agree with this entirely as another British subject. The only day my school had anything regarding a Royal day was when Princess Diana visited once, one of my friends was chosen to give her the schools bunch of flowers and then he shook her hand -- I missed it as I was off school being ill :( Outside that one day - nothing. To be honest it just wouldn't be British to be fawning, flag waving and saluting in a school - people would think you were part of the national front (i.e. far right nationalists). I mean its one thing if a member of the royal family is there in front of you - but otherwise people would think you are a bit odd. The morning school routine I have seen used in TV/films of American schools if replicated here would likely result in claims of racism against the teacher.
To be honest, the premise is a bit laughable - I mean the linage is chock full of foreign princesses and in the case of the Queen, her husband is a foreigner.
For replacing the royals, I can't see the point. Yes the system is anachronistic and out of place in modern society but it is also really cheap - something like under £40million... and they all pay tax on all their earnings (even the Queen). The net cost is truly tiny compared to anything that might replace them. Worse still for me is WHO might replace them - President Blair ? No thank you..
For replacing the royals, ... Worse still for me is WHO might replace them - President Blair ? No thank you..
A few moments before the Brexit deal was announced, he stormed into action live on TV:Dangit, now I'm trying to stifle a giggle at work. Curse you! :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqF4q9mjW-E
You would think that if there’s no money and no real estate to fight over there won’t be any inheritance drama, right?
My grandmother had four sons and my mother. When she passed she split her money (<50K) evenly among the five and left my mother all of her belongings.
Mom took her rocking chair and told the rest of the family to tag what they wanted. There were lots of us grandkids in our 20s so all of the furniture and household items were useful. I wanted the old wooden footstool the kids used while baking with Grandma, and a tiny spoon with a miner on the handle that had fascinated me as a child. One of those “earliest memories” things.
My uncle’s wife claimed the whole souvenir spoon collection, and decreed that I couldn’t take the one I wanted because it was part of the collection. Do you remember those tacky wooden racks that held tacky souvenir spoons? That’s what I’m talking about. Zero value and not a set per se.
So I took the one spoon and the footstool. For the rest of her life my uncle’s wife resented me for taking that spoon! She brought it up yearly for almost 30 years. People will create drama over the smallest things.
That's awesome!You would think that if there’s no money and no real estate to fight over there won’t be any inheritance drama, right?
My grandmother had four sons and my mother. When she passed she split her money (<50K) evenly among the five and left my mother all of her belongings.
Mom took her rocking chair and told the rest of the family to tag what they wanted. There were lots of us grandkids in our 20s so all of the furniture and household items were useful. I wanted the old wooden footstool the kids used while baking with Grandma, and a tiny spoon with a miner on the handle that had fascinated me as a child. One of those “earliest memories” things.
My uncle’s wife claimed the whole souvenir spoon collection, and decreed that I couldn’t take the one I wanted because it was part of the collection. Do you remember those tacky wooden racks that held tacky souvenir spoons? That’s what I’m talking about. Zero value and not a set per se.
So I took the one spoon and the footstool. For the rest of her life my uncle’s wife resented me for taking that spoon! She brought it up yearly for almost 30 years. People will create drama over the smallest things.
Is your uncle's wife dead? If not, you could buy this - leave it outside to age for a few weeks and then give it to her and look like the bigger person (if you want to play that game): https://www.bonanza.com/items/like/21719741/Whitehorse-Yukon-Gold-Miner-Figural-Souvenir-Spoon (https://www.bonanza.com/items/like/21719741/Whitehorse-Yukon-Gold-Miner-Figural-Souvenir-Spoon)
Yep, that looks like a much shinier version of the same spoon! And if you scroll down in that link you can see more tacky souvenir spoons. But she passed away in 2019, and I'm sure the spoons went in the trash. They really have no value.
Is your uncle's wife dead? If not, you could buy this - leave it outside to age for a few weeks and then give it to her and look like the bigger person (if you want to play that game): https://www.bonanza.com/items/like/21719741/Whitehorse-Yukon-Gold-Miner-Figural-Souvenir-Spoon (https://www.bonanza.com/items/like/21719741/Whitehorse-Yukon-Gold-Miner-Figural-Souvenir-Spoon)
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” She demands that dead dad treat her equally economically. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
All of them, each and every sibling as well as the dead dad, are/were operating from emotion.I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” She demands that dead dad treat her equally economically. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
Equal isn't the same thing as fair.
Anyone who has more than one kid knows that each is unique and different, and has different needs. Later in life, different kids will also provide different levels of support to their parents. At the extreme end you get the stereotypical moocher who never moves out and who gets parented or enabled until the parents die, or else the stereotypical overachiever who takes on all the elder-care responsibilities while other siblings skate.
A lot of people use an inheritance to do more than one thing: to set up a disabled or needy child, to compensate a child who provided more in terms of support, or even to balance out giving from earlier in life (kid A got college expenses paid but kid B did not). Some use it to punish a child who for whatever reason doesn't live up to their expectations.
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” That sib is demanding dead dad give equal economic treatment to all siblings. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” That sib is demanding dead dad give equal economic treatment to all siblings. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
If you are gifted $10k but are not happy about it bc the person next to you is gifted $15k, and you decide to pursue legal action to ensure that you both get the same amount, is that greedy on your part? Yes!
Expecting anything from an estate is greedy, because you didn't earn that money. In this case dad earned the money/items/whatever and is free to give them out however he pleases.
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” That sib is demanding dead dad give equal economic treatment to all siblings. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
If you are gifted $10k but are not happy about it bc the person next to you is gifted $15k, and you decide to pursue legal action to ensure that you both get the same amount, is that greedy on your part? Yes!
Expecting anything from an estate is greedy, because you didn't earn that money. In this case dad earned the money/items/whatever and is free to give them out however he pleases.
Actually, it is dependent on the legal system if a father is allowed to do what he wants with money after death. Here, half of your estate goes to your children and have to be divided in equal slots. That is if you are not married to your childrens mother because in that case she inherits all and the kids gets their part after she is dead. The other half you can do what you want with. So if you want to decide what to do with your money, spend it before your death. Oh, and you can’t gift it before your immediate death to your favourite kid because then he/she has to return it to the estate.
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” That sib is demanding dead dad give equal economic treatment to all siblings. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
If you are gifted $10k but are not happy about it bc the person next to you is gifted $15k, and you decide to pursue legal action to ensure that you both get the same amount, is that greedy on your part? Yes!
Expecting anything from an estate is greedy, because you didn't earn that money. In this case dad earned the money/items/whatever and is free to give them out however he pleases.
Actually, it is dependent on the legal system if a father is allowed to do what he wants with money after death. Here, half of your estate goes to your children and have to be divided in equal slots. That is if you are not married to your childrens mother because in that case she inherits all and the kids gets their part after she is dead. The other half you can do what you want with. So if you want to decide what to do with your money, spend it before your death. Oh, and you can’t gift it before your immediate death to your favourite kid because then he/she has to return it to the estate.
Where is “here?”
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” That sib is demanding dead dad give equal economic treatment to all siblings. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
If you are gifted $10k but are not happy about it bc the person next to you is gifted $15k, and you decide to pursue legal action to ensure that you both get the same amount, is that greedy on your part? Yes!
Expecting anything from an estate is greedy, because you didn't earn that money. In this case dad earned the money/items/whatever and is free to give them out however he pleases.
Actually, it is dependent on the legal system if a father is allowed to do what he wants with money after death. Here, half of your estate goes to your children and have to be divided in equal slots. That is if you are not married to your childrens mother because in that case she inherits all and the kids gets their part after she is dead. The other half you can do what you want with. So if you want to decide what to do with your money, spend it before your death. Oh, and you can’t gift it before your immediate death to your favourite kid because then he/she has to return it to the estate.
Where is “here?”
Here is Sweden. In Finland, you have to fulfill certain provisions to disinherit your children. So getting pissed of at your kids is not enough for them to loose their inheritance.
Anyway, do you expect Swedish inheritance laws are set up that way since a lot of people have long term domestic partnerships and kids without ever getting officially married?
Hej, hej @Plina !
I spent a semester in Sweden during college and I absolutely loved the culture, landscape, and pizza with kebab on it!
I especially loved the culture of lagom and the freedom to access land, both are things I wish we had more of in the US. I really wish I had tried to find a job in Sweden after I graduated from University, but oh well.
Anyway, do you expect Swedish inheritance laws are set up that way since a lot of people have long term domestic partnerships and kids without ever getting officially married?
Fascinating. I wonder whether Swedes make different decisions about supporting their children financially than people do who live in places where you can leave different amounts to different children.
Edit: I see that I use "inheritance tax" as a synonym for "estate tax". Sorry for any confusion, I'm not sure they mean the same thing in the US. :)
Hej, hej @Plina !
I spent a semester in Sweden during college and I absolutely loved the culture, landscape, and pizza with kebab on it!
I especially loved the culture of lagom and the freedom to access land, both are things I wish we had more of in the US. I really wish I had tried to find a job in Sweden after I graduated from University, but oh well.
Anyway, do you expect Swedish inheritance laws are set up that way since a lot of people have long term domestic partnerships and kids without ever getting officially married?
It seems to be a way to protect the inheritance of the family and going back to the 13 th century. The right of children to inherit seems to have been subject to some changes during the years. In 1848 both male and female children got the equal right to inherit. In 1917 the children born out of wedlock got the right to inherit their mothers and 1969 for fathers due to the blood relations. The current system is a mix of the right of the children to their inheritance and the protection of the spouse. There was an investigation in the beginning of the 80ies if to allow a free choice regarding the inheritance as most people don’t have a need of an inheritance today but it was seen as a way to create fairness among all children of the deceased. There was a fear that the children in previous relationsships would be left out. I didn’t actually know this before but it seems to not have anything to do with our domestic partnerships.
Actually you can leave different amount to your children, it is only half of your estate that have to be equally distributed among all your children. If you have given large gifts to one of your children it can be accounted towards the inheritance. Maybe, it is just me but I don’t know anyone that support their adult children. The father of a friend gave a monthly stipend to both of his children as a way to distribute the inheritance before his death but neither of them needed it for their living.
If you don’t have children and a spouse, your parents inherit. If they are dead your siblings inherit and in case they are dead their children. Thereafter, you have to have a will if you don’t want the money to go to the state owned public estate trust. The trust donates money to different causes. But if you don’t have kids or a spouse you can do what you want with your money. I don’t have neither and I have currently chosen to not have a will. That will change the day my parents are gone.
It happened because Stieg Larsen didn’t have a will. He could have named his partner and she would have inherited everything. The law is made to protect your children and married spouse, not the rest of the relatives.
Fascinating. I wonder whether Swedes make different decisions about supporting their children financially than people do who live in places where you can leave different amounts to different children.
That is a really good question. And my answer is that I don't really know, for possibly two reasons.
The first is that altough Sweden is a very open society (Example: anyone can make an anonymous call to the tax office and find out the personal ID-number (SSN equivalent) and the taxed income of anyone else), many people simply don't talk about money. Not in the workplace and not among friends. You might say how much you paid for your car or your house, but you don't talk about income or wealth.
The second reason I think is that due to structural differences, many people simply don't have a very big estate. Even the top earners make less money than in the USA, and we're taxed higher. Many people also live quite long, spending their money as time passes and few people get a life-changing windfall upon the death of a relative. Inheritance is therefore not really a widespread way to support your kids.
Hej, hej @Plina !
I spent a semester in Sweden during college and I absolutely loved the culture, landscape, and pizza with kebab on it!
I especially loved the culture of lagom and the freedom to access land, both are things I wish we had more of in the US. I really wish I had tried to find a job in Sweden after I graduated from University, but oh well.
Anyway, do you expect Swedish inheritance laws are set up that way since a lot of people have long term domestic partnerships and kids without ever getting officially married?
It seems to be a way to protect the inheritance of the family and going back to the 13 th century. The right of children to inherit seems to have been subject to some changes during the years. In 1848 both male and female children got the equal right to inherit. In 1917 the children born out of wedlock got the right to inherit their mothers and 1969 for fathers due to the blood relations. The current system is a mix of the right of the children to their inheritance and the protection of the spouse. There was an investigation in the beginning of the 80ies if to allow a free choice regarding the inheritance as most people don’t have a need of an inheritance today but it was seen as a way to create fairness among all children of the deceased. There was a fear that the children in previous relationsships would be left out. I didn’t actually know this before but it seems to not have anything to do with our domestic partnerships.
Actually you can leave different amount to your children, it is only half of your estate that have to be equally distributed among all your children. If you have given large gifts to one of your children it can be accounted towards the inheritance. Maybe, it is just me but I don’t know anyone that support their adult children. The father of a friend gave a monthly stipend to both of his children as a way to distribute the inheritance before his death but neither of them needed it for their living.
If you don’t have children and a spouse, your parents inherit. If they are dead your siblings inherit and in case they are dead their children. Thereafter, you have to have a will if you don’t want the money to go to the state owned public estate trust. The trust donates money to different causes. But if you don’t have kids or a spouse you can do what you want with your money. I don’t have neither and I have currently chosen to not have a will. That will change the day my parents are gone.
It happened because Stieg Larsen didn’t have a will. He could have named his partner and she would have inherited everything. The law is made to protect your children and married spouse, not the rest of the relatives.
I think it's pretty common across Europe that it's mandatory to leave money to your kids or you have to leave equal amounts etc. An inheritance is historically seen as a birthright, and would usually consist of (a share in) a farm or farmland or maybe a townhouse - and of course, lots of people never left inheritances at all. Those rules were designed for the wealthy. In some juridictions I think you can disinherit your children but if you fight that decision, a judge will decide if the reason you did that was 'good enough'.
In my country, if you do not leave a will, your children will inherit equal parts in your inheritance. You can change that in your will, but your child is always entitled to half of what they would have inherited if you did not leave a will (their "legitimate portion" or "child's share") but they can only inherit money, not goods. So you can make sure one child inherits valuable goods like an art collection, the other child is only entitled to a portion of the value but cannot claim the paintings itself.
It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
I wouldn't expect that it would be possible to give it all to his partner. Personally, I'd just want to divert enough so that he and the partner weren't completely shafted by the long-lost daughter.It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
He was extremely wealthy though - owned several apartment buildings in a nice part of town. Seemed to live a life of luxury. It would be difficult to spent that amount of money on his partner.
I wouldn't expect that it would be possible to give it all to his partner. Personally, I'd just want to divert enough so that he and the partner weren't completely shafted by the long-lost daughter.It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
He was extremely wealthy though - owned several apartment buildings in a nice part of town. Seemed to live a life of luxury. It would be difficult to spent that amount of money on his partner.
It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
Establish residency in a country with sane inheritance laws, or put everything into a trust/corporation/whatever legal structure with the partner as beneficiary.
I don't know if it's the same in Italy, but in the USA it's pretty simple to have money, stocks, bonds and such bypass probate entirely. Set up a "payable on death" beneficiary. Estate never even sees the money. Real estate ownership can be structured with right of survivorship. Etc.
If you're even moderately wealthy, there are always ways to do what you want with your money (for the most part.) Find a good estate lawyer and get it done.
I wouldn't expect that it would be possible to give it all to his partner. Personally, I'd just want to divert enough so that he and the partner weren't completely shafted by the long-lost daughter.It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
He was extremely wealthy though - owned several apartment buildings in a nice part of town. Seemed to live a life of luxury. It would be difficult to spent that amount of money on his partner.
I have absolutely no idea how that works in Italy, but in the Netherlands, gifts over about €3000 to someone who is not a relative (blood or by marriage) are taxable. And any gifts that are gifted in the 6 months before death have to be returned to the estate, to make sure people aren't going to give away a large part of the estate when they know they are going to die, to avoid inheritance tax. Depending on the circumstances, if an elderly person would give large gifts to someone before their death, the heirs could potentially claim that that someone abused the trust and the age of the person leaving the inheritance and it could go to court.
It happened in my family when an elderly person died, that person had no children or spouse but lots of nieces and nephews. One of them spent a lot of time caring for that person and in return for that they would get money. Not significant amounts, something like €50/100 a week. People seriously considered going to court over that, but in the end the size of the estate was not worth it. But inheriting equal shares of the "family money" was something that everyone considered to be a birthright, even though one was a carer and the others were not. I was not an heir of that estate, but I knew my family member was mentally competent, no one took advantage of them, so I feel they absolutely had a right to give their own money to their carer.
In our country only parents can't disinherit their children, so if you don't have children you can totally disinherit your siblings or nieces/nephews, but it would be extremely unusual in my social circle.
I have absolutely no idea how that works in Italy, but in the Netherlands, gifts over about €3000 to someone who is not a relative (blood or by marriage) are taxable. And any gifts that are gifted in the 6 months before death have to be returned to the estate, to make sure people aren't going to give away a large part of the estate when they know they are going to die, to avoid inheritance tax. Depending on the circumstances, if an elderly person would give large gifts to someone before their death, the heirs could potentially claim that that someone abused the trust and the age of the person leaving the inheritance and it could go to court.
It happened in my family when an elderly person died, that person had no children or spouse but lots of nieces and nephews. One of them spent a lot of time caring for that person and in return for that they would get money. Not significant amounts, something like €50/100 a week. People seriously considered going to court over that, but in the end the size of the estate was not worth it. But inheriting equal shares of the "family money" was something that everyone considered to be a birthright, even though one was a carer and the others were not. I was not an heir of that estate, but I knew my family member was mentally competent, no one took advantage of them, so I feel they absolutely had a right to give their own money to their carer.
In our country only parents can't disinherit their children, so if you don't have children you can totally disinherit your siblings or nieces/nephews, but it would be extremely unusual in my social circle.
How are inheritance taxes structured in the Netherlands? This particular tax grab is largely missing in Canada, I'm curious what the future may bring.
but if you are leaving money to someone who is not a blood relative, it's taxed at an extremely high rate (tax-free portion of €2000, 30% tax over the next €125.000, 40% tax over the rest of the estate). I can give away some money before death as a tax-free gift, but that's only €3000/year.Set up a passive business for with them with the terms that their ownership of the business increases because they are doing the work on the business and you aren't. Then it's not a gift and each year the percentage that would be taxed would drop. Rental real estate would be an example, another would be sharecropped farmland. If you can set it up as a joint tenancy with write of survivorship, they own it when you die.
Fascinating. I wonder whether Swedes make different decisions about supporting their children financially than people do who live in places where you can leave different amounts to different children.
Did that happen to Larsen's estate because he didn't have a will? Or did he have a will naming his partner but that will was illegal under Swedish law?
Does any Swede have any leeway in how to leave money? What happens if I have no husband, no children, no siblings, and my parents are both dead?
but if you are leaving money to someone who is not a blood relative, it's taxed at an extremely high rate (tax-free portion of €2000, 30% tax over the next €125.000, 40% tax over the rest of the estate). I can give away some money before death as a tax-free gift, but that's only €3000/year.Set up a passive business for with them with the terms that their ownership of the business increases because they are doing the work on the business and you aren't. Then it's not a gift and each year the percentage that would be taxed would drop. Rental real estate would be an example, another would be sharecropped farmland. If you can set it up as a joint tenancy with write of survivorship, they own it when you die.
Fascinating. I wonder whether Swedes make different decisions about supporting their children financially than people do who live in places where you can leave different amounts to different children.
Did that happen to Larsen's estate because he didn't have a will? Or did he have a will naming his partner but that will was illegal under Swedish law?
Does any Swede have any leeway in how to leave money? What happens if I have no husband, no children, no siblings, and my parents are both dead?
My memory of the Steig Larrson case: Steig Larrson and his partner had been together their entire adult life. They were broke reporters owning nothing of particular value and no will. He wrote 3 books (and outlined 7 more). Shortly after a book deal was signed and before they were published he died suddenly (heart attack?). The books were published posthumously and were surprise best sellers. His brother (and father?) inherited his entire estate. His partner may have had physical possession of the outlines but no right to use them. I may have some details wrong but really in this case what happened is exactly what would happen in the US in similar circumstances.
Fascinating. I wonder whether Swedes make different decisions about supporting their children financially than people do who live in places where you can leave different amounts to different children.
Did that happen to Larsen's estate because he didn't have a will? Or did he have a will naming his partner but that will was illegal under Swedish law?
Does any Swede have any leeway in how to leave money? What happens if I have no husband, no children, no siblings, and my parents are both dead?
My memory of the Steig Larrson case: Steig Larrson and his partner had been together their entire adult life. They were broke reporters owning nothing of particular value and no will. He wrote 3 books (and outlined 7 more). Shortly after a book deal was signed and before they were published he died suddenly (heart attack?). The books were published posthumously and were surprise best sellers. His brother (and father?) inherited his entire estate. His partner may have had physical possession of the outlines but no right to use them. I may have some details wrong but really in this case what happened is exactly what would happen in the US in similar circumstances.
It sounds like his partner still could’ve made out like a bandit by selling the physical objects she owned, the remaining manuscripts, to Larrson’s family who owned the rights to publish them.
I wonder why he didn't leave a will. It sounds like they were together for ages, and lived like a married couple but didn't want to go through the formalities for understandable reasons. From a quick google search it seems like he was long-term estranged from his father and brother and had been engaged to his partner for 20 years. Maybe because he figured he'd have nothing of value to leave her? But it seems like at the very least they owned a flat together and he must have had some personal property. Even if he hadn't become famous after death, you'd think he'd wanted that to go to his partner rather than his stranged family.
I wonder why he didn't leave a will. It sounds like they were together for ages, and lived like a married couple but didn't want to go through the formalities for understandable reasons. From a quick google search it seems like he was long-term estranged from his father and brother and had been engaged to his partner for 20 years. Maybe because he figured he'd have nothing of value to leave her? But it seems like at the very least they owned a flat together and he must have had some personal property. Even if he hadn't become famous after death, you'd think he'd wanted that to go to his partner rather than his stranged family.
His isnt one of those countries that awarded his assets to his legal relatives?
I do find that idea of European countries shocking. Damn, it’s my money, the last thing I want is my $3 million going to my brothers and sisters nieces and nephews. Well they are getting some of it in our current well, they’re organizations I would much rather leave money to.
So in these European countries spoken of above, do organizations i.e. charities get anything upon someone’s death?
I wonder why he didn't leave a will. It sounds like they were together for ages, and lived like a married couple but didn't want to go through the formalities for understandable reasons. From a quick google search it seems like he was long-term estranged from his father and brother and had been engaged to his partner for 20 years. Maybe because he figured he'd have nothing of value to leave her? But it seems like at the very least they owned a flat together and he must have had some personal property. Even if he hadn't become famous after death, you'd think he'd wanted that to go to his partner rather than his stranged family.
His isnt one of those countries that awarded his assets to his legal relatives?
I do find that idea of European countries shocking. Damn, it’s my money, the last thing I want is my $3 million going to my brothers and sisters nieces and nephews. Well they are getting some of it in our current well, they’re organizations I would much rather leave money to.
So in these European countries spoken of above, do organizations i.e. charities get anything upon someone’s death?
I wonder why he didn't leave a will. It sounds like they were together for ages, and lived like a married couple but didn't want to go through the formalities for understandable reasons. From a quick google search it seems like he was long-term estranged from his father and brother and had been engaged to his partner for 20 years. Maybe because he figured he'd have nothing of value to leave her? But it seems like at the very least they owned a flat together and he must have had some personal property. Even if he hadn't become famous after death, you'd think he'd wanted that to go to his partner rather than his stranged family.
His isnt one of those countries that awarded his assets to his legal relatives?
I do find that idea of European countries shocking. Damn, it’s my money, the last thing I want is my $3 million going to my brothers and sisters nieces and nephews. Well they are getting some of it in our current well, they’re organizations I would much rather leave money to.
So in these European countries spoken of above, do organizations i.e. charities get anything upon someone’s death?
I don't know about Sweden, but in my country (the Netherlands) only parents are obliged to leave something to their children. If you don't have a spouse or kids it's just tax disadvantaged to let non-family inherit, it's not impossible. A child has a birthright to their parents' estate, but a sibling or niece/nephew doesn't, there's only a strong moral obligation in my social circle, and a tax advantage.
In my country, charities can get inheritances tax-free. If I wanted to leave my estate to a friend they'd pay a fortune in taxes but a charity would not have to pay that.
In Larsson case it is pretty simple legally. If there is no will, the partner don’t inherit.
In Larsson case it is pretty simple legally. If there is no will, the partner don’t inherit.
Amazing. It does show how different laws are around the world. In British Columbia, if you have cohabited for 2 years you are considered married. Dying without a will causes the estate to be handled by the government, so other family members could have also made claims, but (without kids) his partner would have had the strongest claim.
This thread made me realize I need a will. If nothing else but to prevent my money going to the Swedish Inheritance Fund if the unexpected happens.
@Plina check out https://mrkoll.se/ - there you might find even more info available about us, free for anyone and online. :)
but if you are leaving money to someone who is not a blood relative, it's taxed at an extremely high rate (tax-free portion of €2000, 30% tax over the next €125.000, 40% tax over the rest of the estate). I can give away some money before death as a tax-free gift, but that's only €3000/year.Set up a passive business for with them with the terms that their ownership of the business increases because they are doing the work on the business and you aren't. Then it's not a gift and each year the percentage that would be taxed would drop. Rental real estate would be an example, another would be sharecropped farmland. If you can set it up as a joint tenancy with write of survivorship, they own it when you die.
Lemanfan, I loved your story!Me, too!
It was so cool. I really, really want to do this now!Lemanfan, I loved your story!Me, too!
OK, I've spammed this thread enough without posting a story, so let me post one which might be a bit different drama than most...
...
He had managed to play one final joke on us. Wherever he ended up in the afterlife, I'm sure he giggled like I remember him doing when thinking of this. :)
not so much missing as paid a different way. When someone dies, without a spouse, everything they own is deemed 'sold' at time of death and any capital gains are taxed to the estate, even RRSPs and RRIFs. If the deceased has a spouse, RRIFs and RRSPs can transfer without tax, primary residence is also excluded. So the deceased pays the taxes, not the one inheriting.I have absolutely no idea how that works in Italy, but in the Netherlands, gifts over about €3000 to someone who is not a relative (blood or by marriage) are taxable. And any gifts that are gifted in the 6 months before death have to be returned to the estate, to make sure people aren't going to give away a large part of the estate when they know they are going to die, to avoid inheritance tax. Depending on the circumstances, if an elderly person would give large gifts to someone before their death, the heirs could potentially claim that that someone abused the trust and the age of the person leaving the inheritance and it could go to court.
It happened in my family when an elderly person died, that person had no children or spouse but lots of nieces and nephews. One of them spent a lot of time caring for that person and in return for that they would get money. Not significant amounts, something like €50/100 a week. People seriously considered going to court over that, but in the end the size of the estate was not worth it. But inheriting equal shares of the "family money" was something that everyone considered to be a birthright, even though one was a carer and the others were not. I was not an heir of that estate, but I knew my family member was mentally competent, no one took advantage of them, so I feel they absolutely had a right to give their own money to their carer.
In our country only parents can't disinherit their children, so if you don't have children you can totally disinherit your siblings or nieces/nephews, but it would be extremely unusual in my social circle.
How are inheritance taxes structured in the Netherlands? This particular tax grab is largely missing in Canada, I'm curious what the future may bring.
not so much missing as paid a different way. When someone dies, without a spouse, everything they own is deemed 'sold' at time of death and any capital gains are taxed to the estate, even RRSPs and RRIFs. If the deceased has a spouse, RRIFs and RRSPs can transfer without tax, primary residence is also excluded. So the deceased pays the taxes, not the one inheriting.I have absolutely no idea how that works in Italy, but in the Netherlands, gifts over about €3000 to someone who is not a relative (blood or by marriage) are taxable. And any gifts that are gifted in the 6 months before death have to be returned to the estate, to make sure people aren't going to give away a large part of the estate when they know they are going to die, to avoid inheritance tax. Depending on the circumstances, if an elderly person would give large gifts to someone before their death, the heirs could potentially claim that that someone abused the trust and the age of the person leaving the inheritance and it could go to court.
It happened in my family when an elderly person died, that person had no children or spouse but lots of nieces and nephews. One of them spent a lot of time caring for that person and in return for that they would get money. Not significant amounts, something like €50/100 a week. People seriously considered going to court over that, but in the end the size of the estate was not worth it. But inheriting equal shares of the "family money" was something that everyone considered to be a birthright, even though one was a carer and the others were not. I was not an heir of that estate, but I knew my family member was mentally competent, no one took advantage of them, so I feel they absolutely had a right to give their own money to their carer.
In our country only parents can't disinherit their children, so if you don't have children you can totally disinherit your siblings or nieces/nephews, but it would be extremely unusual in my social circle.
How are inheritance taxes structured in the Netherlands? This particular tax grab is largely missing in Canada, I'm curious what the future may bring.
not so much missing as paid a different way. When someone dies, without a spouse, everything they own is deemed 'sold' at time of death and any capital gains are taxed to the estate, even RRSPs and RRIFs. If the deceased has a spouse, RRIFs and RRSPs can transfer without tax, primary residence is also excluded. So the deceased pays the taxes, not the one inheriting.Isn't that pretty much the same thing? Either pay taxes, then distribute, vs distribute, then pay taxes?
not so much missing as paid a different way. When someone dies, without a spouse, everything they own is deemed 'sold' at time of death and any capital gains are taxed to the estate, even RRSPs and RRIFs. If the deceased has a spouse, RRIFs and RRSPs can transfer without tax, primary residence is also excluded. So the deceased pays the taxes, not the one inheriting.Isn't that pretty much the same thing? Either pay taxes, then distribute, vs distribute, then pay taxes?
I wonder why he didn't leave a will. It sounds like they were together for ages, and lived like a married couple but didn't want to go through the formalities for understandable reasons. From a quick google search it seems like he was long-term estranged from his father and brother and had been engaged to his partner for 20 years. Maybe because he figured he'd have nothing of value to leave her? But it seems like at the very least they owned a flat together and he must have had some personal property. Even if he hadn't become famous after death, you'd think he'd wanted that to go to his partner rather than his stranged family.
His isnt one of those countries that awarded his assets to his legal relatives?
I do find that idea of European countries shocking. Damn, it’s my money, the last thing I want is my $3 million going to my brothers and sisters nieces and nephews. Well they are getting some of it in our current well, they’re organizations I would much rather leave money to.
So in these European countries spoken of above, do organizations i.e. charities get anything upon someone’s death?
I wonder why he didn't leave a will. It sounds like they were together for ages, and lived like a married couple but didn't want to go through the formalities for understandable reasons. From a quick google search it seems like he was long-term estranged from his father and brother and had been engaged to his partner for 20 years. Maybe because he figured he'd have nothing of value to leave her? But it seems like at the very least they owned a flat together and he must have had some personal property. Even if he hadn't become famous after death, you'd think he'd wanted that to go to his partner rather than his stranged family.
His isnt one of those countries that awarded his assets to his legal relatives?
I do find that idea of European countries shocking. Damn, it’s my money, the last thing I want is my $3 million going to my brothers and sisters nieces and nephews. Well they are getting some of it in our current well, they’re organizations I would much rather leave money to.
So in these European countries spoken of above, do organizations i.e. charities get anything upon someone’s death?
Late to this discussion but I'm starting to understand why Regicide was so common among European royalty....
Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
not so much missing as paid a different way. When someone dies, without a spouse, everything they own is deemed 'sold' at time of death and any capital gains are taxed to the estate, even RRSPs and RRIFs. If the deceased has a spouse, RRIFs and RRSPs can transfer without tax, primary residence is also excluded. So the deceased pays the taxes, not the one inheriting.Isn't that pretty much the same thing? Either pay taxes, then distribute, vs distribute, then pay taxes?
It's not a problem if there is cash in the estate. The main problem is when the estate is basically a single house that the heirs want to keep: in that situation the tax bill can be big but there's no cash in the estate. I can't say I feel too sorry - inheritance tax only kicks in above £325,000 so the heirs are going to get a nice increase in worth whatever they do.not so much missing as paid a different way. When someone dies, without a spouse, everything they own is deemed 'sold' at time of death and any capital gains are taxed to the estate, even RRSPs and RRIFs. If the deceased has a spouse, RRIFs and RRSPs can transfer without tax, primary residence is also excluded. So the deceased pays the taxes, not the one inheriting.Isn't that pretty much the same thing? Either pay taxes, then distribute, vs distribute, then pay taxes?
I am not certain about exactly how this works, but I think in the UK the heir(s) have to pay the inheritance tax before getting their hands on the estate. This is a colossal pain in the ass, because it's really not that unusual for the amount assessed for inheritance tax to be more than the heirs personal NW. It's like in Guys and Dolls - if they only had a lousy little grand they could be a millionaire! But as it is, if they can't afford £30k for the tax, they can't inherit £300k (numbers made up). I believe you can get loans for this specific purpose. IMO, it should be the executors job to pay inheritance tax from the estate before distribution.
It's definitely a first world problem, but still an annoying one! I stand corrected about the cash. I know about it because my mother's friend was inheriting and couldn't pay the IHT upfront but now I come to think of it, she was inheriting a London house.
@partgypsy You can't fix this. I get why it's frustrating, because it is ultimately unhealthy. Your sister is getting free housing/food, your mom gets a servant. Short of your brother selling the place (and both have to move out), the only person who can fix this situation is your sister. And since she's getting something out of it she may not want to. Even if your brother sells, it's possible that they will find a place together and continue the dynamic.
The odds are good that whenever this does break up your sister is going to struggle. You won't be able to fix that either. It sucks. Try to disengage.
@partgypsy You can't fix this. I get why it's frustrating, because it is ultimately unhealthy. Your sister is getting free housing/food, your mom gets a servant. Short of your brother selling the place (and both have to move out), the only person who can fix this situation is your sister. And since she's getting something out of it she may not want to. Even if your brother sells, it's possible that they will find a place together and continue the dynamic.
The odds are good that whenever this does break up your sister is going to struggle. You won't be able to fix that either. It sucks. Try to disengage.
I don't think it's a healthy dynamic at all. My mom had a codependent relationship with my brother (different, he was the one being "taken care of") and the longer this goes the more sister will feel this is all she is capable of (she's even said as such. Also that she just needs a break because life is so stressful). And even if Mom gives her 100% of her assets, it will not be enough to live on if sister is unable to live independently.
Any suggestions?
It's definitely a first world problem, but still an annoying one! I stand corrected about the cash. I know about it because my mother's friend was inheriting and couldn't pay the IHT upfront but now I come to think of it, she was inheriting a London house.
You are right. It's just that then they individually bitch to me (esp my sister) so it is frustrating. But no one wants to change, so...Any suggestions?
I have one, but you're not going to like it.
Stay out of this. It sucks. It's not healthy. long-term, it's bad for everyone. And yet, none of those things are yours to fix. Your mother and sister are unwilling to change and your brother is unwilling to make them change.
They are family, so you're not impartial or truly separated from the situation, but you are powerless. You can't do anything here and you shouldn't unless someone asks you too.
You offered advice to your mom and sister (schedule and consolidate errands/chores and pay sister for her time) and they both rejected it for their own reasons. Your brother, it seems, isn't forcing sister pay rent. So, legitimately, there is nothing you can do.
The real and only suggestion you should consider is "stay out of it" unless someone asks you for help down the road. You already did all you can do. Don't try to do any more. Let it go. This isn't your battle to fight.
You are right. It's just that then they individually bitch to me (esp my sister) so it is frustrating. But no one wants to change, so...Any suggestions?
I have one, but you're not going to like it.
Stay out of this. It sucks. It's not healthy. long-term, it's bad for everyone. And yet, none of those things are yours to fix. Your mother and sister are unwilling to change and your brother is unwilling to make them change.
They are family, so you're not impartial or truly separated from the situation, but you are powerless. You can't do anything here and you shouldn't unless someone asks you too.
You offered advice to your mom and sister (schedule and consolidate errands/chores and pay sister for her time) and they both rejected it for their own reasons. Your brother, it seems, isn't forcing sister pay rent. So, legitimately, there is nothing you can do.
The real and only suggestion you should consider is "stay out of it" unless someone asks you for help down the road. You already did all you can do. Don't try to do any more. Let it go. This isn't your battle to fight.
You are right. It's just that then they individually bitch to me (esp my sister) so it is frustrating. But no one wants to change, so...Any suggestions?
I have one, but you're not going to like it.
Stay out of this. It sucks. It's not healthy. long-term, it's bad for everyone. And yet, none of those things are yours to fix. Your mother and sister are unwilling to change and your brother is unwilling to make them change.
They are family, so you're not impartial or truly separated from the situation, but you are powerless. You can't do anything here and you shouldn't unless someone asks you too.
You offered advice to your mom and sister (schedule and consolidate errands/chores and pay sister for her time) and they both rejected it for their own reasons. Your brother, it seems, isn't forcing sister pay rent. So, legitimately, there is nothing you can do.
The real and only suggestion you should consider is "stay out of it" unless someone asks you for help down the road. You already did all you can do. Don't try to do any more. Let it go. This isn't your battle to fight.
You are right. It's just that then they individually bitch to me (esp my sister) so it is frustrating. But no one wants to change, so...Any suggestions?
I have one, but you're not going to like it.
Stay out of this. It sucks. It's not healthy. long-term, it's bad for everyone. And yet, none of those things are yours to fix. Your mother and sister are unwilling to change and your brother is unwilling to make them change.
They are family, so you're not impartial or truly separated from the situation, but you are powerless. You can't do anything here and you shouldn't unless someone asks you too.
You offered advice to your mom and sister (schedule and consolidate errands/chores and pay sister for her time) and they both rejected it for their own reasons. Your brother, it seems, isn't forcing sister pay rent. So, legitimately, there is nothing you can do.
The real and only suggestion you should consider is "stay out of it" unless someone asks you for help down the road. You already did all you can do. Don't try to do any more. Let it go. This isn't your battle to fight.
You are right. I listen because, I feel bad for them (brother, sister) and feel it's the least I can do (let them vent). So, I will still allow them to bitch, but let them know they have a 2/5 min; after that they need to change subject. I think might be a good approach for any of those long-standing, bitch sessions that esp my sister likes to do (same basic themes, over past 20, 30 years)You are right. It's just that then they individually bitch to me (esp my sister) so it is frustrating. But no one wants to change, so...Any suggestions?
I have one, but you're not going to like it.
Stay out of this. It sucks. It's not healthy. long-term, it's bad for everyone. And yet, none of those things are yours to fix. Your mother and sister are unwilling to change and your brother is unwilling to make them change.
They are family, so you're not impartial or truly separated from the situation, but you are powerless. You can't do anything here and you shouldn't unless someone asks you too.
You offered advice to your mom and sister (schedule and consolidate errands/chores and pay sister for her time) and they both rejected it for their own reasons. Your brother, it seems, isn't forcing sister pay rent. So, legitimately, there is nothing you can do.
The real and only suggestion you should consider is "stay out of it" unless someone asks you for help down the road. You already did all you can do. Don't try to do any more. Let it go. This isn't your battle to fight.
"We've talked about this and about how you have agency in the problem and in solving it. You choose not to do so, so I ask that you please not come to me about it. I've offered all the input I have and it seems it doesn't work for you. So I don't want to discuss the mom/sister/brother situation with you anymore as it upsets me and makes me uncomfortable. On another note, did you see that cute news story about the cat who put out a fire in the family home..."
They bitch to you because you let them, just as mom and sister take advantage of brother because he lets them, and sister takes advantage of mom because she lets her. If you don't want to hear about this, tell them that. Set a boundary, and every. single. time they test it, remind them, "I told you I'm staying out of the situation and don't want to discuss it, remember? is they anything else you want to talk about?"
Having read all the posts, I see that @Villanelle had the exact same approach. And @SwordGuy had a good approach as well. All of our approaches involve setting some hard boundaries.
...
Having read all the posts, I see that @Villanelle had the exact same approach. And @SwordGuy had a good approach as well. All of our approaches involve setting some hard boundaries.
...
Here are some I have used:
- on the third complaint about a wife, "Right. I've heard that from you. Now what I want to know is what your divorce attorney said. Get back to me with that."
- on the third complaint about a nuthatch girlfriend, "Done listening. Suppose we meet at your place at 4 and I'll help you change the locks."
- on the second request for financial advice, "A man always gives his best advice first. You got that and you said, 'Oh, I could never do that.' You need to specify what my role in this conversation is, or it can't continue."
Edit: I see that I use "inheritance tax" as a synonym for "estate tax". Sorry for any confusion, I'm not sure they mean the same thing in the US. :)
They do mean the same thing here. :)
They are not actually the same thing in the U.S.Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.
They are not actually the same thing in the U.S.Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.
I am not a USian, but I do have an unhealthy interest in tax systems around the world.
"How can you manage such a vehicle on your reported $13,000 Euro income you have reported for the last 3 years?"
"How can you manage such a vehicle on your reported $13,000 Euro income you have reported for the last 3 years?"
The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has started using neighbourhood land values to target people for audits, if the owners don't have a matching income to afford their $2m house.
See number 8 here:
https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2013/top-ten-cra-audit-flags/
I am not sure how they can sort through all the odd cases, though. Inheritance, job loss, or mustachianism could all throw off the "usual" income/asset balance.
In the US, which also got its land system from the UK, the counties has a registrar of deeds and the history of the transactions. I suspect Canada does also.
It's not usually too hard to see the difference between a purchase and an inheritance or gift.
Death records of the grantor of the deed could be checked to weed out most inheritances from gifts.
As for income changes for job loss, presumably the revenue service knows the income reported in past years so that wouldn't be too hard to figure out either.
Shucks, you would be surprised at how much info I can get from the registrar of deeds. I can find out how much your purchase price was, how much the mortgage was for (and thus calculate your down payment). I know when that transaction happened. I know when you took out a second mortgage against the property and how much it was for. I know when you paid off your mortgages.
Since I know when, I can search for average mortgage interest rates for a month before that and using a mortgage calculator estimate your possible P&I payments on your mortgage. The property tax office will tell me the amount of property tax you're paying.
As people are added to or subtracted from a deed I can guess there was a divorce or marriage. Don't think folks usually bother to remove a deceased person from the deed, but if they did, I would know it.
In the US, which also got its land system from the UK, the counties has a registrar of deeds and the history of the transactions. I suspect Canada does also.
It's not usually too hard to see the difference between a purchase and an inheritance or gift.
Death records of the grantor of the deed could be checked to weed out most inheritances from gifts.
As for income changes for job loss, presumably the revenue service knows the income reported in past years so that wouldn't be too hard to figure out either.
Shucks, you would be surprised at how much info I can get from the registrar of deeds. I can find out how much your purchase price was, how much the mortgage was for (and thus calculate your down payment). I know when that transaction happened. I know when you took out a second mortgage against the property and how much it was for. I know when you paid off your mortgages.
Since I know when, I can search for average mortgage interest rates for a month before that and using a mortgage calculator estimate your possible P&I payments on your mortgage. The property tax office will tell me the amount of property tax you're paying.
As people are added to or subtracted from a deed I can guess there was a divorce or marriage. Don't think folks usually bother to remove a deceased person from the deed, but if they did, I would know it.
To be clear, Swordguy's information extraction is not a superpower as the registrar of deeds (County Auditor or similar) have public, internet searchable databases.
In the US, which also got its land system from the UK, the counties has a registrar of deeds and the history of the transactions. I suspect Canada does also.
Ha! In my state, Zillow et al provide sale prices and tax history to all comers. I use it for reference it all the time. Heck, Redfin even provides photos from prior listings, which are a ton of (frugal) fun to pore through.In the US, which also got its land system from the UK, the counties has a registrar of deeds and the history of the transactions. I suspect Canada does also.
BC uses a Torrens land title system, but not nearly so much information is publicly available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title
https://ltsa.ca/about-ltsa/#
Charges on title can be searched for a fee, but sale prices and mortgage values are currently not available.
While I don't mind my country's tax man having access to the data, I am happy that it is not publicly available for identity theft by agents sitting in Beijing or St Petersburg.
Where I am the land records don't go back/aren't digitized (not sure which) before 1920, so lots and lots of houses were "built" in 1920 according to the system. But that actually just means "built in 1920 or earlier", it's a placeholder. I'm always surprised at how many real estate pros don't know this and will just post a house for sale with the wrong data on the listing. Mine is from 1906 (neighbor has the ad from the developer). I wish I could find out more about its early history!That is similar to records for houses in my neighborhood. Most all Reed built in 1885 but there are real life variances. I think that was an arbitrary date the city assessors office chose for historic records.
"How can you manage such a vehicle on your reported $13,000 Euro income you have reported for the last 3 years?"
The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has started using neighbourhood land values to target people for audits, if the owners don't have a matching income to afford their $2m house.
See number 8 here:
https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2013/top-ten-cra-audit-flags/
I am not sure how they can sort through all the odd cases, though. Inheritance, job loss, or mustachianism could all throw off the "usual" income/asset balance.
IMO, everyone who lives in a region should pay for their regional benefits through taxes, according to their actual incomes, up to a maximum. Libraries, rec centres, roads, parks, schools, public landscaping, healthcare are all heavily subsidized by the government here, through taxes.What you're describing sounds a lot like the FAIRtax (https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works). (That website is a mess, but the short version of the plan is "The only federal tax is a flat sales/consumption tax on everything. And everybody gets a check for $x every year."
This is why I am hugely in favor of sales taxes (consumption taxes excluding essential items) and lower income taxes. Pay as you go, according to what you can afford to actually spend. It is an indirect tax on having huge assets, but only if/as you choose to spend.
Monthly sales tax rebates of a set amount per person will reduce the impact of sales taxes lower income situations, contrary to conventional arguments that sales taxes hit lower income people more.
This story fits into this thread perfectly: https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/parenting/my-sisters-one-of-whom-was-a-fortune-500-vp-emptied-my-mother-s-house-and-told-me-to-take-what-was-left/ar-AAKCm91?ocid=msedgdhpWise words from Quentin, "As you are aware, our possessions do not define us. Our actions define us. Guard your actions and words as they would guard your mother’s furniture."
Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
I suspect it's not a legal problem it's a people problem. A legal problem approached with good will all around can be solved at a reasonable cost in people's time, money and emotions. But if someone wants to make things difficult they can obstruct, they can lie, they can misdirect, they can steal, they can gaslight, they can turn other people against reality and justice and they can make any affordable settlement within a reasonable time scale impossible. Sadly when they do that they often "win" because the price of fighting them is just too high for any reasonble person to do it.Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
I suspect it's not a legal problem it's a people problem. A legal problem approached with good will all around can be solved at a reasonable cost in people's time, money and emotions. But if someone wants to make things difficult they can obstruct, they can lie, they can misdirect, they can steal, they can gaslight, they can turn other people against reality and justice and they can make any affordable settlement within a reasonable time scale impossible. Sadly when they do that they often "win" because the price of fighting them is just too high for any reasonble person to do it.Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
And if in the meantime your nearest but not dearest have appropriated or trashed all the property left under the will, with the support of your other family members, what do you do?Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
People can contest the will, but as long as the deceased followed state law in making the will, it will generally hold up in court.
[This website](https://www.thebalance.com/what-are-the-grounds-for-contesting-a-will-3505208) notes four areas where a will might be contested:
1. Not signed in accordance with state law
2. Lacks mental capacity
3. Influenced by others
4. Will acquired by fraud
People can waste the estate's money and contest a will all they want, but unless they can prove any of those things, it's not likely to change anything.
And if in the meantime your nearest but not dearest have appropriated or trashed all the property left under the will, with the support of your other family members, what do you do?
And if in the meantime your nearest but not dearest have appropriated or trashed all the property left under the will, with the support of your other family members, what do you do?Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
People can contest the will, but as long as the deceased followed state law in making the will, it will generally hold up in court.
[This website](https://www.thebalance.com/what-are-the-grounds-for-contesting-a-will-3505208) notes four areas where a will might be contested:
1. Not signed in accordance with state law
2. Lacks mental capacity
3. Influenced by others
4. Will acquired by fraud
People can waste the estate's money and contest a will all they want, but unless they can prove any of those things, it's not likely to change anything.
I suspect it's not a legal problem it's a people problem. A legal problem approached with good will all around can be solved at a reasonable cost in people's time, money and emotions. But if someone wants to make things difficult they can obstruct, they can lie, they can misdirect, they can steal, they can gaslight, they can turn other people against reality and justice and they can make any affordable settlement within a reasonable time scale impossible. Sadly when they do that they often "win" because the price of fighting them is just too high for any reasonble person to do it.Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
I suspect it's not a legal problem it's a people problem. A legal problem approached with good will all around can be solved at a reasonable cost in people's time, money and emotions. But if someone wants to make things difficult they can obstruct, they can lie, they can misdirect, they can steal, they can gaslight, they can turn other people against reality and justice and they can make any affordable settlement within a reasonable time scale impossible. Sadly when they do that they often "win" because the price of fighting them is just too high for any reasonble person to do it.Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
In trying to settle my father's affairs between my sister and I, we've spent 6 months fighting courts and banks and paying a crap ton of money to a lawyer. The will is very straight forward, done properly according to state law, and there's no disagreement of any kind between my sister and I, yet every step of the way we have had to pay out the nose to get it executed and in one case threaten legal action against banks who refused to hand over money despite a will and a court judgement/order.
The investment accounts and bank accounts that had a beneficiary were in our hands with exactly zero trouble, zero expense and no delay other than filling out paperwork and proving our identities.
Like I said: if you want your heirs to not go through hell and pay an absurd amount of money to inherit your assets, you want beneficiaries and/or a living trust on _everything_. Neither you nor your heirs are served by relying on a will.
If you are willing to disclose which state and/or which banks, that might be more helpful. Certain states have much more complex processes, which may also give the banks more room to play games.
I suspect it's not a legal problem it's a people problem.
If you are willing to disclose which state and/or which banks, that might be more helpful. Certain states have much more complex processes, which may also give the banks more room to play games.
Colorado and US Bank.
To be clear, we got it taken care of, but only after threatening the bank manager with legal action. Apparently dispersing money to the executor of the estates with "only court documents and a will" is a "very non-standard practice" according to them. Obviously shady bullshit of course. I don't hold that as a knock against wills, but with us listed as beneficiaries on other accounts the process was pretty much "would you like that as cash, check or money order?" after showing them a death certificate and proof of identity. With investment accounts it was also very straightforward too with only a bit more paperwork due to the need to establish beneficiary accounts, etc.
We had trouble with US Bank, too, and my parents had a trust. They had 401ks in four different institutions. We got bullshit from three and cooperation from Fidelity, after I paid a call on them with a CPA friend who used to work for the IRS. Once they cooperated, we moved everything, one by one, to Fidelity. Once that was done, we distributed the funds and called it done. It took over a year. Oh, and Fidelity has made their share of mistakes, so I'm not saying they're perfect, but they did help us settle the estate without the 50% tax haircut the others (including a hired, then fired, attorney) said had to be paid prior to distribution. No, no it did not.
If you are willing to disclose which state and/or which banks, that might be more helpful. Certain states have much more complex processes, which may also give the banks more room to play games.
Colorado and US Bank.
To be clear, we got it taken care of, but only after threatening the bank manager with legal action. Apparently dispersing money to the executor of the estates with "only court documents and a will" is a "very non-standard practice" according to them. Obviously shady bullshit of course. I don't hold that as a knock against wills, but with us listed as beneficiaries on other accounts the process was pretty much "would you like that as cash, check or money order?" after showing them a death certificate and proof of identity. With investment accounts it was also very straightforward too with only a bit more paperwork due to the need to establish beneficiary accounts, etc.
If you are willing to disclose which state and/or which banks, that might be more helpful. Certain states have much more complex processes, which may also give the banks more room to play games.
Colorado and US Bank.
To be clear, we got it taken care of, but only after threatening the bank manager with legal action. Apparently dispersing money to the executor of the estates with "only court documents and a will" is a "very non-standard practice" according to them. Obviously shady bullshit of course. I don't hold that as a knock against wills, but with us listed as beneficiaries on other accounts the process was pretty much "would you like that as cash, check or money order?" after showing them a death certificate and proof of identity. With investment accounts it was also very straightforward too with only a bit more paperwork due to the need to establish beneficiary accounts, etc.
And yet that's exactly what I did as executor with my Letters Testamentary and a Death Certificate. Not a single concern from any person at multiple organizations that those weren't sufficient documents.
The only pushback I got was that for one account the Letters Testamentary were over a year old when I found that account and they wanted Letters with a later date on them. Pain in the butt but reasonable.
I assume the issue is more about confirming that the estate is still active. If you've formally settled the estate, then find new money later on, you may need to re-qualify as executor/admin and re-open the estate/probate.
If you are willing to disclose which state and/or which banks, that might be more helpful. Certain states have much more complex processes, which may also give the banks more room to play games.
Colorado and US Bank.
To be clear, we got it taken care of, but only after threatening the bank manager with legal action. Apparently dispersing money to the executor of the estates with "only court documents and a will" is a "very non-standard practice" according to them. Obviously shady bullshit of course. I don't hold that as a knock against wills, but with us listed as beneficiaries on other accounts the process was pretty much "would you like that as cash, check or money order?" after showing them a death certificate and proof of identity. With investment accounts it was also very straightforward too with only a bit more paperwork due to the need to establish beneficiary accounts, etc.
And yet that's exactly what I did as executor with my Letters Testamentary and a Death Certificate. Not a single concern from any person at multiple organizations that those weren't sufficient documents.
The only pushback I got was that for one account the Letters Testamentary were over a year old when I found that account and they wanted Letters with a later date on them. Pain in the butt but reasonable.
"I hereby confirm that xyz is still dead"
Not sure what the cause was of that family attitude, but I frequently wonder what the (now dead) people who buried their money, or hid it in mattresses or whatever, would think about the time and effort they have caused their descendants. Or how much got thrown out or lost because no one knew about the thousands stashed in the blue coffee can, amongst the pile of all the coffee cans.
Not sure what the cause was of that family attitude, but I frequently wonder what the (now dead) people who buried their money, or hid it in mattresses or whatever, would think about the time and effort they have caused their descendants. Or how much got thrown out or lost because no one knew about the thousands stashed in the blue coffee can, amongst the pile of all the coffee cans."There's always money in the banana stand..."
Not sure what the cause was of that family attitude, but I frequently wonder what the (now dead) people who buried their money, or hid it in mattresses or whatever, would think about the time and effort they have caused their descendants. Or how much got thrown out or lost because no one knew about the thousands stashed in the blue coffee can, amongst the pile of all the coffee cans.Oof, after FIL died, we had to clean out both of their homes and move MIL and her pal Al Z. Heimer in with us. We tackled the second home first, beginning with an estate sale. We found a couple thousand in a linen closet as we were preparing for the sale. Then I moved a nightstand and found a pouch of cash tucked underneath. It had ten grand in it. Finally, on Day 2 of the sale, I moved a floor lamp and found $800 underneath it. Grand total was about $13k. Who knows what else we missed?
Not sure what the cause was of that family attitude, but I frequently wonder what the (now dead) people who buried their money, or hid it in mattresses or whatever, would think about the time and effort they have caused their descendants. Or how much got thrown out or lost because no one knew about the thousands stashed in the blue coffee can, amongst the pile of all the coffee cans.Oof, after FIL died, we had to clean out both of their homes and move MIL and her pal Al Z. Heimer in with us. We tackled the second home first, beginning with an estate sale. We found a couple thousand in a linen closet as we were preparing for the sale. Then I moved a nightstand and found a pouch of cash tucked underneath. It had ten grand in it. Finally, on Day 2 of the sale, I moved a floor lamp and found $800 underneath it. Grand total was about $13k. Who knows what else we missed?
We've heard that stashing money in light switches was also a popular hiding place, but couldn't be arsed to check them.Not sure what the cause was of that family attitude, but I frequently wonder what the (now dead) people who buried their money, or hid it in mattresses or whatever, would think about the time and effort they have caused their descendants. Or how much got thrown out or lost because no one knew about the thousands stashed in the blue coffee can, amongst the pile of all the coffee cans.Oof, after FIL died, we had to clean out both of their homes and move MIL and her pal Al Z. Heimer in with us. We tackled the second home first, beginning with an estate sale. We found a couple thousand in a linen closet as we were preparing for the sale. Then I moved a nightstand and found a pouch of cash tucked underneath. It had ten grand in it. Finally, on Day 2 of the sale, I moved a floor lamp and found $800 underneath it. Grand total was about $13k. Who knows what else we missed?
Oh, so you didn't check the spare tire in the car that doesn't run in the garage for kruegerrands? That's one of many places my wife's aunt put stuff.
We've heard that stashing money in light switches was also a popular hiding place, but couldn't be arsed to check them.
Or inflammatory ;-)We've heard that stashing money in light switches was also a popular hiding place, but couldn't be arsed to check them.
How illuminating!
We've heard that stashing money in light switches was also a popular hiding place, but couldn't be arsed to check them.Not sure what the cause was of that family attitude, but I frequently wonder what the (now dead) people who buried their money, or hid it in mattresses or whatever, would think about the time and effort they have caused their descendants. Or how much got thrown out or lost because no one knew about the thousands stashed in the blue coffee can, amongst the pile of all the coffee cans.Oof, after FIL died, we had to clean out both of their homes and move MIL and her pal Al Z. Heimer in with us. We tackled the second home first, beginning with an estate sale. We found a couple thousand in a linen closet as we were preparing for the sale. Then I moved a nightstand and found a pouch of cash tucked underneath. It had ten grand in it. Finally, on Day 2 of the sale, I moved a floor lamp and found $800 underneath it. Grand total was about $13k. Who knows what else we missed?
Oh, so you didn't check the spare tire in the car that doesn't run in the garage for kruegerrands? That's one of many places my wife's aunt put stuff.
My grandmother has £10k hidden in her flat "for her funeral". And once gave her two kids money "for her funeral". And has some amount of a prepaid funeral plan. She is not a showy person and I have no idea what she ever imagined all that money would be spent on.
I think the family might need to have a betting pool on how much cash we find in how many different locations, because she withdraws her full income in cash every month, spends about half of it, then sends some portion of the rest to various family members in carefully disguised stacks of twenties "to avoid inheritance tax" but the rest... well, it must be somewhere. And I'm pretty sure she doesn't remember any more where she's put it over the years.
I have more than once opened a book at a certain close relative's house only to have a stack of 50s or 20s fall out. God only knows what'll get destroyed/trashed/thrown out when she dies, because all I do know is that we'll never find all the spare small stowaways of cash. Not big money, just a tiny bit here and there--just enough to make it tempting to dig thoroughly through everything...
My grandmother has £10k hidden in her flat "for her funeral". And once gave her two kids money "for her funeral". And has some amount of a prepaid funeral plan. She is not a showy person and I have no idea what she ever imagined all that money would be spent on.My dementia brained mother had a thing about her funeral as well. Salesmen were hitting her house as an easy mark. A “funeral insurance” guy talked her up but I think my brother intervened before she signed on the dotted line.
I think the family might need to have a betting pool on how much cash we find in how many different locations, because she withdraws her full income in cash every month, spends about half of it, then sends some portion of the rest to various family members in carefully disguised stacks of twenties "to avoid inheritance tax" but the rest... well, it must be somewhere. And I'm pretty sure she doesn't remember any more where she's put it over the years.
I guess planning one’s funeral, multiple times, is a bit of a hobby at that advanced age.
I guess planning one’s funeral, multiple times, is a bit of a hobby at that advanced age.
The psychological aspects of contemplating your own mortality can affect us all. Especially when it becomes 'real' through increasing age, bad health, or deaths in your circle of friends.
I guess planning one’s funeral, multiple times, is a bit of a hobby at that advanced age.
The psychological aspects of contemplating your own mortality can affect us all. Especially when it becomes 'real' through increasing age, bad health, or deaths in your circle of friends.
My grandmothers death opened that door in our family. I told my parents were I would want to be buried in case I died before them and what kind of memorial stone I would like to have. It makes things easier as I don’t have a spouse or kids. But I am not making funeral planning a hobby.
I heartily second working out what you want for your funeral and either telling your nearest and dearest or writing it down somewhere it will be found. It is so much easier for your grieving loved ones to follow a script rather than trying to second guess what should be done. Even if it's just indicating burial or cremation.
Interesting food for thought in the latest posts. I've told DH that I truly could not care less what sort of funeral or memorial or whatever happens in my name. I'm dead; I don't care. I don't care what is done with my body (I'm finished with it!) or anything else. I view it like an old pair of shoes--if they can be donated so that someone else can get use out of them, great, beyond that, I'm no longer attached to them so... whatever.
But I wonder now if that actually is a disservice to whomever ends up planning it, because there's no direction at all. Am I inadvertently making it more difficult than someone who plans down to the last detail, complete with photo examples and links to specific items? Or at a minimum, do I need to give everyone permission (even encouragement) to go cheap and easy? Basic cremation, unless people feel it would be helpful for them to bury me and have a grave, in which case basic coffin and a plot with a view of the freeway and a strip club are fine?
I guess telling your loved ones that you don't have a personal preference but they can do whatever they feel will help them most would be the best thing. No need to plan details if you truly don't care, and it gives them the approval to do whatever feels best for them.I agree, unless you have reason to think that there will be strife among the survivors about what kind of funeral to have.
My MIL died last week, after having ALZ for at least a decade. All the arrangements were made at least a decade ago. Everything was paid for, including transport of her body to the mortuary. Well, everything that could be paid for. The massive, ancient, creepily wonderful place where several generations of the family are interred has a couple of "gotchas". There is a niche that already contains her husband's ashes. There is a fee to turn the key that opens the small glass door. We're sure it will be at least $2,000, probably more. Possibly double that. We'll find out on Friday.
Oh and they left not one word about what kind of ceremony they wanted. "Secular crematorium service" is what we did for my FIL, but DH's mentally ill sister showed up and was very disruptive. Sad as it seems, nobody wants a repeat of that scene, nor do we want to do something and not invite her.
DH's parents had zero interest in religion of any kind. They were not involved in their community. That's the result, I suppose. We can't even think of any reason to run an obituary.
We will most likely use the pandemic as an excuse to do...nothing.
On a brighter note, DH's parents took up pottery in retirement. FIL was quite talented. We kept a few pieces as mementos when MIL moved in with us. MIL "hid" things in her dresser drawers. When I started to sort her things, I found a lovely, small vase tucked in a corner. We always assumed was done by FIL. On closer inspection, it has her initials on the bottom. Huh. Did they make it together? The finish looks like his work, but we'll never know. We've decided to put it into the niche, beside the small stuffed Mickey Mouse that we included in FIL's inurnment. They were avid garage salers, with a particular affection for inexpensive Mickey Mouse memorabilia.
So the niche will hold their two urns, the MM stuffie they most likely got at a garage sale, and a pretty little vase that one or both of them made.
.
@Villanelle I'd still jot down a few things, even if it's just stuff you don't want. You don't know who might end up wanting a say in the funeral plans so "do whatever makes you feel good" will be different for different people - and how will they decide between themselves with nothing to go on? Same reason it's good to make a will even if it's super simple and what everyone expects - it removes any debate, internal or external. There are a few tickbox funeral planning guides online if you just want to take ten minutes over it to ensure less hassle for your heirs/friends and family.
I think you're right that providing direction when they are grieving is a good thing to do. There's also the issue that may arise if there's a disagreement among your loved ones about what type of service (or not) is appropriate. For example, Stoic Catholic Relative A might want a traditional Catholic funeral, while Naturalist Relative B might want to wrap you in a burlap sack and toss you in a hole, and they're each horrified by the other's proposal. If you provide direction, it also (hopefully!) eliminates that potential source of conflict.@Villanelle I'd still jot down a few things, even if it's just stuff you don't want. You don't know who might end up wanting a say in the funeral plans so "do whatever makes you feel good" will be different for different people - and how will they decide between themselves with nothing to go on? Same reason it's good to make a will even if it's super simple and what everyone expects - it removes any debate, internal or external. There are a few tickbox funeral planning guides online if you just want to take ten minutes over it to ensure less hassle for your heirs/friends and family.
I genuinely don't care, to the point that there's nothing I don't want. For example, a full catholic funeral would seem super odd because I'm decidedly not Catholic (or Christian, or religious), but if that's what people want to do, the decision doesn't affect me in any way, what with me being dead. So I really mean if when I say that whatever those closest to me find most meaningful or comforting or silly, or cheap or easy, or whatever criteria they want to use is A-okay with me. I've told them that, and it does seem to me like that would make it easy because they don't have any pressure to guess what I would have wanted if I was there for the event, but I can see that it does provide no direction in a time that I'm guessing they will be at least a bit upset and overwhelmed.
Outside of those who feel like there are certain things that need to be done for religious or similar reasons, I'm not sure why anyone much cares (but acknowledge and respect that they do) with few exceptions (and things like "make sure you invite cousin Fred because I think it's mean when is is excluded). But that's because I believe that when we die, we stop entirely and in all ways, so it's a thing that has zero affect on my whatsoever.
I think you're right that providing direction when they are grieving is a good thing to do. There's also the issue that may arise if there's a disagreement among your loved ones about what type of service (or not) is appropriate. For example, Stoic Catholic Relative A might want a traditional Catholic funeral, while Naturalist Relative B might want to wrap you in a burlap sack and toss you in a hole, and they're each horrified by the other's proposal. If you provide direction, it also (hopefully!) eliminates that potential source of conflict.@Villanelle I'd still jot down a few things, even if it's just stuff you don't want. You don't know who might end up wanting a say in the funeral plans so "do whatever makes you feel good" will be different for different people - and how will they decide between themselves with nothing to go on? Same reason it's good to make a will even if it's super simple and what everyone expects - it removes any debate, internal or external. There are a few tickbox funeral planning guides online if you just want to take ten minutes over it to ensure less hassle for your heirs/friends and family.
I genuinely don't care, to the point that there's nothing I don't want. For example, a full catholic funeral would seem super odd because I'm decidedly not Catholic (or Christian, or religious), but if that's what people want to do, the decision doesn't affect me in any way, what with me being dead. So I really mean if when I say that whatever those closest to me find most meaningful or comforting or silly, or cheap or easy, or whatever criteria they want to use is A-okay with me. I've told them that, and it does seem to me like that would make it easy because they don't have any pressure to guess what I would have wanted if I was there for the event, but I can see that it does provide no direction in a time that I'm guessing they will be at least a bit upset and overwhelmed.
Outside of those who feel like there are certain things that need to be done for religious or similar reasons, I'm not sure why anyone much cares (but acknowledge and respect that they do) with few exceptions (and things like "make sure you invite cousin Fred because I think it's mean when is is excluded). But that's because I believe that when we die, we stop entirely and in all ways, so it's a thing that has zero affect on my whatsoever.
I think you're right that providing direction when they are grieving is a good thing to do. There's also the issue that may arise if there's a disagreement among your loved ones about what type of service (or not) is appropriate. For example, Stoic Catholic Relative A might want a traditional Catholic funeral, while Naturalist Relative B might want to wrap you in a burlap sack and toss you in a hole, and they're each horrified by the other's proposal. If you provide direction, it also (hopefully!) eliminates that potential source of conflict.@Villanelle I'd still jot down a few things, even if it's just stuff you don't want. You don't know who might end up wanting a say in the funeral plans so "do whatever makes you feel good" will be different for different people - and how will they decide between themselves with nothing to go on? Same reason it's good to make a will even if it's super simple and what everyone expects - it removes any debate, internal or external. There are a few tickbox funeral planning guides online if you just want to take ten minutes over it to ensure less hassle for your heirs/friends and family.
I genuinely don't care, to the point that there's nothing I don't want. For example, a full catholic funeral would seem super odd because I'm decidedly not Catholic (or Christian, or religious), but if that's what people want to do, the decision doesn't affect me in any way, what with me being dead. So I really mean if when I say that whatever those closest to me find most meaningful or comforting or silly, or cheap or easy, or whatever criteria they want to use is A-okay with me. I've told them that, and it does seem to me like that would make it easy because they don't have any pressure to guess what I would have wanted if I was there for the event, but I can see that it does provide no direction in a time that I'm guessing they will be at least a bit upset and overwhelmed.
Outside of those who feel like there are certain things that need to be done for religious or similar reasons, I'm not sure why anyone much cares (but acknowledge and respect that they do) with few exceptions (and things like "make sure you invite cousin Fred because I think it's mean when is is excluded). But that's because I believe that when we die, we stop entirely and in all ways, so it's a thing that has zero affect on my whatsoever.
I think you're right that providing direction when they are grieving is a good thing to do. There's also the issue that may arise if there's a disagreement among your loved ones about what type of service (or not) is appropriate. For example, Stoic Catholic Relative A might want a traditional Catholic funeral, while Naturalist Relative B might want to wrap you in a burlap sack and toss you in a hole, and they're each horrified by the other's proposal. If you provide direction, it also (hopefully!) eliminates that potential source of conflict.@Villanelle I'd still jot down a few things, even if it's just stuff you don't want. You don't know who might end up wanting a say in the funeral plans so "do whatever makes you feel good" will be different for different people - and how will they decide between themselves with nothing to go on? Same reason it's good to make a will even if it's super simple and what everyone expects - it removes any debate, internal or external. There are a few tickbox funeral planning guides online if you just want to take ten minutes over it to ensure less hassle for your heirs/friends and family.
I genuinely don't care, to the point that there's nothing I don't want. For example, a full catholic funeral would seem super odd because I'm decidedly not Catholic (or Christian, or religious), but if that's what people want to do, the decision doesn't affect me in any way, what with me being dead. So I really mean if when I say that whatever those closest to me find most meaningful or comforting or silly, or cheap or easy, or whatever criteria they want to use is A-okay with me. I've told them that, and it does seem to me like that would make it easy because they don't have any pressure to guess what I would have wanted if I was there for the event, but I can see that it does provide no direction in a time that I'm guessing they will be at least a bit upset and overwhelmed.
Outside of those who feel like there are certain things that need to be done for religious or similar reasons, I'm not sure why anyone much cares (but acknowledge and respect that they do) with few exceptions (and things like "make sure you invite cousin Fred because I think it's mean when is is excluded). But that's because I believe that when we die, we stop entirely and in all ways, so it's a thing that has zero affect on my whatsoever.
Full Disclosure: I work with funeral homes & cemetery (but am not a licensed professional)
I think one of the worst trends is the "don't have a service for me" trend. I understand that in most cases it said/done as a gesture of help -- as in, "I don't want you to have to go through a funeral. So I don't want one." What they are misunderstanding is that grief happens whether there is a service or not. It's just that they are putting you through their loss without any support or rituals that might be helpful.
This doesn't mean that everyone should have a big, expensive funeral to deal with their grief. If you think it would be more helpful to your family to rent out the local event center, buy some food and drinks, and give people a chance to tell a few stories and hug and console your closest loved ones, then great - do that. (But set up some way to have this pre-arranged so that it doesn't fall on your grieving loved ones to have to plan an event in a few days.)
But honestly, if you are directly or indirectly telling people "don't have a service" or "just throw me in a ditch" then you are essentially saying to your survivors (whether you mean to or not), "I want you to suffer through your grief alone."
I understand that there may or may not be a plot in my husband's family's cemetery in a state where I have never lived. I don't want to be embalmed or buried, so no thanks. I want my ashes interred into a reef ball that is sunk off the coast.
I understand that there may or may not be a plot in my husband's family's cemetery in a state where I have never lived. I don't want to be embalmed or buried, so no thanks. I want my ashes interred into a reef ball that is sunk off the coast.
Reef ball! Never heard of them but off to investigate.
Funerals can be surprising - my Dad said not to bother because he was in his 90s, didn't think there would be enough people to show up. But we did have a funeral, and the small chapel was full. The person in charge after my aunt died did not arrange a funeral, so several of my aunt's friends and a few local family gathered at one person's house for tea and to tell stories. It was lovely. Of course we did not invite the person in charge of arrangements, who was a stranger to us.
Full Disclosure: I work with funeral homes & cemetery (but am not a licensed professional)
I think one of the worst trends is the "don't have a service for me" trend. I understand that in most cases it said/done as a gesture of help -- as in, "I don't want you to have to go through a funeral. So I don't want one." What they are misunderstanding is that grief happens whether there is a service or not. It's just that they are putting you through their loss without any support or rituals that might be helpful.
Full Disclosure: I work with funeral homes & cemetery (but am not a licensed professional)
I think one of the worst trends is the "don't have a service for me" trend. I understand that in most cases it said/done as a gesture of help -- as in, "I don't want you to have to go through a funeral. So I don't want one." What they are misunderstanding is that grief happens whether there is a service or not. It's just that they are putting you through their loss without any support or rituals that might be helpful.
This doesn't mean that everyone should have a big, expensive funeral to deal with their grief. If you think it would be more helpful to your family to rent out the local event center, buy some food and drinks, and give people a chance to tell a few stories and hug and console your closest loved ones, then great - do that. (But set up some way to have this pre-arranged so that it doesn't fall on your grieving loved ones to have to plan an event in a few days.)
But honestly, if you are directly or indirectly telling people "don't have a service" or "just throw me in a ditch" then you are essentially saying to your survivors (whether you mean to or not), "I want you to suffer through your grief alone."
Since I'm one of the ones who said I truly don't care what happens, I'll address this. I'm not telling anyone NOT to have a service. If they want to sit in grief for 7 days, cool. If they want to invite anyone I've ever met (and some I haven't) to an epic service with A-list entertainers and an open mic for "Villanelle was Amazing" stories, fantastic. Or if they want to throw me in a ditch, that's wonderful, too.
But I also think your post somewhat shows your bias. You deal mostly with the families who do end up doing something beyond a ditch, which creates a confirmation bias for "services of some kind are helpful" because the people you deal with are generally doing at least something. I have no remaining grandparents and have lost my best friend of 30+ years, my Father in law (husband's dad), as well as a handful of other people close to me. For all of them, there was either not a service, or I was unable to attend due to living on the other side of the world. *I* didn't need a service to help my grief. I didn't feel like a lack of service was "grieving alone". There were phone calls and texts and stories shared and FB posts, and comfort from my husband and from local friends who didn't know these people but reached out to me, and all sorts of things. A service is surely helpful to some people. An informal wake, "Hey, come by our place on Tuesday night, BYOB, and let's honor Villanelle in that way", may be helpful for others. But for plenty of people, the service isn't necessary and doesn't aid the grief, and a lack of service certain does not mean "grieving alone". I wouldn't have grieved those people any "better", faster, healthier, whatever, if I'd stood at a gravesite and thrown dirt, or in a church and heard sermons and hymns, or in a living room and shared whiskeys and stories, or anything else. And I certainly wasn't alone in my grief just because I didn't gather with other grievers.
Full Disclosure: I work with funeral homes & cemetery (but am not a licensed professional)
I think one of the worst trends is the "don't have a service for me" trend. .... "I want you to suffer through your grief alone."
Since I'm one of the ones who said I truly don't care what happens, I'll address this. I'm not telling anyone NOT to have a service. If they want to sit in grief for 7 days, cool. If they want to invite anyone I've ever met (and some I haven't) to an epic service with A-list entertainers and an open mic for "Villanelle was Amazing" stories, fantastic. Or if they want to throw me in a ditch, that's wonderful, too.
But I also think your post somewhat shows your bias. You deal mostly with the families who do end up doing something beyond a ditch, which creates a confirmation bias for "services of some kind are helpful" because the people you deal with are generally doing at least something. I have no remaining grandparents and have lost my best friend of 30+ years, my Father in law (husband's dad), as well as a handful of other people close to me. For all of them, there was either not a service, or I was unable to attend due to living on the other side of the world. *I* didn't need a service to help my grief. I didn't feel like a lack of service was "grieving alone". There were phone calls and texts and stories shared and FB posts, and comfort from my husband and from local friends who didn't know these people but reached out to me, and all sorts of things. A service is surely helpful to some people. An informal wake, "Hey, come by our place on Tuesday night, BYOB, and let's honor Villanelle in that way", may be helpful for others. But for plenty of people, the service isn't necessary and doesn't aid the grief, and a lack of service certain does not mean "grieving alone". I wouldn't have grieved those people any "better", faster, healthier, whatever, if I'd stood at a gravesite and thrown dirt, or in a church and heard sermons and hymns, or in a living room and shared whiskeys and stories, or anything else. And I certainly wasn't alone in my grief just because I didn't gather with other grievers.
This depends greatly on the situation and family, so don't always judge too harshly. In my father's case, a service would have been the worst possible thing for the main grievers. Family that couldn't afford to travel (and honestly weren't that close to him) would have gone into debt to do so just to keep up appearances. My mother would have turned it into a borderline narcissistic shit show, and the entire burden would have fallen on her children whom she would have used the whole thing as a means to torture us. His death removed the protection he had extended to us all of his life, as he was the only one my mother listened to. He knew this and used his final power as "man of the house" to protect his children from his wife's crazy. My sis and I had our own memorial at a local pub, so it was all good.
I tend to disagree with the bolded. Other than occasionally planning a memorial service, I have no connection to the industry. I went to my first funeral when I was about 17. My boyfriend's mother died rather suddenly. The funeral was amazing in that I got to learn so much more about her than my teenage level of maturity had allowed me to notice while she was alive. It taught me a valuable and abiding lesson. Everybody has an interesting story or scores of them. In fact, in the years since, I've never been to a service where I haven't learned more about the person being remembered. Even my parent's friends told stories that I had never heard before. It is very cathartic. I suppose this makes me feel lucky that there is no one in my life about whom anyone says, "Goodbye, you miserable wretch."Full Disclosure: I work with funeral homes & cemetery (but am not a licensed professional)
I think one of the worst trends is the "don't have a service for me" trend. I understand that in most cases it said/done as a gesture of help -- as in, "I don't want you to have to go through a funeral. So I don't want one." What they are misunderstanding is that grief happens whether there is a service or not. It's just that they are putting you through their loss without any support or rituals that might be helpful.
This doesn't mean that everyone should have a big, expensive funeral to deal with their grief. If you think it would be more helpful to your family to rent out the local event center, buy some food and drinks, and give people a chance to tell a few stories and hug and console your closest loved ones, then great - do that. (But set up some way to have this pre-arranged so that it doesn't fall on your grieving loved ones to have to plan an event in a few days.)
But honestly, if you are directly or indirectly telling people "don't have a service" or "just throw me in a ditch" then you are essentially saying to your survivors (whether you mean to or not), "I want you to suffer through your grief alone."
Since I'm one of the ones who said I truly don't care what happens, I'll address this. I'm not telling anyone NOT to have a service. If they want to sit in grief for 7 days, cool. If they want to invite anyone I've ever met (and some I haven't) to an epic service with A-list entertainers and an open mic for "Villanelle was Amazing" stories, fantastic. Or if they want to throw me in a ditch, that's wonderful, too.
But I also think your post somewhat shows your bias. You deal mostly with the families who do end up doing something beyond a ditch, which creates a confirmation bias for "services of some kind are helpful" because the people you deal with are generally doing at least something. I have no remaining grandparents and have lost my best friend of 30+ years, my Father in law (husband's dad), as well as a handful of other people close to me. For all of them, there was either not a service, or I was unable to attend due to living on the other side of the world. *I* didn't need a service to help my grief. I didn't feel like a lack of service was "grieving alone". There were phone calls and texts and stories shared and FB posts, and comfort from my husband and from local friends who didn't know these people but reached out to me, and all sorts of things. A service is surely helpful to some people. An informal wake, "Hey, come by our place on Tuesday night, BYOB, and let's honor Villanelle in that way", may be helpful for others. But for plenty of people, the service isn't necessary and doesn't aid the grief, and a lack of service certain does not mean "grieving alone". I wouldn't have grieved those people any "better", faster, healthier, whatever, if I'd stood at a gravesite and thrown dirt, or in a church and heard sermons and hymns, or in a living room and shared whiskeys and stories, or anything else. And I certainly wasn't alone in my grief just because I didn't gather with other grievers.
I tend to disagree with the bolded. Other than occasionally planning a memorial service, I have no connection to the industry. I went to my first funeral when I was about 17. My boyfriend's mother died rather suddenly. The funeral was amazing in that I got to learn so much more about her than my teenage level of maturity had allowed me to notice while she was alive. It taught me a valuable and abiding lesson. Everybody has an interesting story or scores of them. In fact, in the years since, I've never been to a service where I haven't learned more about the person being remembered. Even my parent's friends told stories that I had never heard before. It is very cathartic. I suppose this makes me feel lucky that there is no one in my life about whom anyone says, "Goodbye, you miserable wretch."Full Disclosure: I work with funeral homes & cemetery (but am not a licensed professional)
I think one of the worst trends is the "don't have a service for me" trend. I understand that in most cases it said/done as a gesture of help -- as in, "I don't want you to have to go through a funeral. So I don't want one." What they are misunderstanding is that grief happens whether there is a service or not. It's just that they are putting you through their loss without any support or rituals that might be helpful.
This doesn't mean that everyone should have a big, expensive funeral to deal with their grief. If you think it would be more helpful to your family to rent out the local event center, buy some food and drinks, and give people a chance to tell a few stories and hug and console your closest loved ones, then great - do that. (But set up some way to have this pre-arranged so that it doesn't fall on your grieving loved ones to have to plan an event in a few days.)
But honestly, if you are directly or indirectly telling people "don't have a service" or "just throw me in a ditch" then you are essentially saying to your survivors (whether you mean to or not), "I want you to suffer through your grief alone."
Since I'm one of the ones who said I truly don't care what happens, I'll address this. I'm not telling anyone NOT to have a service. If they want to sit in grief for 7 days, cool. If they want to invite anyone I've ever met (and some I haven't) to an epic service with A-list entertainers and an open mic for "Villanelle was Amazing" stories, fantastic. Or if they want to throw me in a ditch, that's wonderful, too.
But I also think your post somewhat shows your bias. You deal mostly with the families who do end up doing something beyond a ditch, which creates a confirmation bias for "services of some kind are helpful" because the people you deal with are generally doing at least something. I have no remaining grandparents and have lost my best friend of 30+ years, my Father in law (husband's dad), as well as a handful of other people close to me. For all of them, there was either not a service, or I was unable to attend due to living on the other side of the world. *I* didn't need a service to help my grief. I didn't feel like a lack of service was "grieving alone". There were phone calls and texts and stories shared and FB posts, and comfort from my husband and from local friends who didn't know these people but reached out to me, and all sorts of things. A service is surely helpful to some people. An informal wake, "Hey, come by our place on Tuesday night, BYOB, and let's honor Villanelle in that way", may be helpful for others. But for plenty of people, the service isn't necessary and doesn't aid the grief, and a lack of service certain does not mean "grieving alone". I wouldn't have grieved those people any "better", faster, healthier, whatever, if I'd stood at a gravesite and thrown dirt, or in a church and heard sermons and hymns, or in a living room and shared whiskeys and stories, or anything else. And I certainly wasn't alone in my grief just because I didn't gather with other grievers.
"narcissistic shit show"
I'm going to this type of funeral very soon. :-( Wish me luck.
"narcissistic shit show"I went to one of those recently. May the odds be ever in your favor.
I'm going to this type of funeral very soon. :-( Wish me luck.
"narcissistic shit show"I went to one of those recently. May the odds be ever in your favor.
I'm going to this type of funeral very soon. :-( Wish me luck.
Recently attended one also. Wishing you luck.
PS The best part of between periods is watching the Zamboni make the ice beautiful. I like your user name. :-).
All I'm gonna say at this time here is that the narcissistic shit show freight train person went to the house of the deceased and found what may have been the only copy of the will within 24 hours of the death. She told siblings she found it and it was "really old", that she didn't like who was in it, and that she was going to burn it. Now she denies that there ever was any will, and says she plans to move into the home of the deceased "so it stays in the family."
Within 24 hours of the death, she also went to the bank of the deceased to try to get the account information. Instead of providing it, the bank thanked her for letting them know about the death and told her the assets, which they will not disclose to her in any way, are now frozen. She seemed genuinely surprised that they bank would not give her money or information about accounts that are not in her name.
Since this is likely going to turn into a legal mess, I'm not going to write any more until it's all sorted out. But think about what happened here when you are making your own estate plans.
This has "get a lawyer" written all over it -- as in yesterday. Whoever else is involved needs to protect themselves, ASAP. Going to be an absolute mess now, no matter what. If she burned a will, it's into criminal territory.
Also: that's a terrific reason not to post/say more about it here.
I think my wife's family may have headaches with a couple of her brothers fighting over what I assume will be a smaller inheritance (~$100K?). It would be great to just walk away but she has been made executor by her parents because she is the level headed one. We probably need to discuss this with them and see if we can move that duty to a neutral party.As the executor you have the authority to hire out the tasks that need to be done. By law you're probably allowed to charge for your time and expenses, which can be used to pay the person you hire. Problem solved.
I'm not quite sure that it's a reward for misbehavior, though I'm sure that at least in the short term it will feel like one. If someone pulls all that crap and gets what they want right now, but everyone else decides they're just done and walks away.... It may not be a problem initially. But at some point, they're going to want something, or need help, and no one is going to be there.That's a very important point. Also, If the toxic person receives a double (or triple) inheritance but doesn't have any fiscal discipline, the larger windfall is likely to only marginally extend and/or enrich the ensuing spending spree. I.e. the extra money will buy the toxic person a couple months worth of pleasure, at the cost of trashing what's left of their familial relationships.
I'm not quite sure that it's a reward for misbehavior, though I'm sure that at least in the short term it will feel like one. If someone pulls all that crap and gets what they want right now, but everyone else decides they're just done and walks away.... It may not be a problem initially. But at some point, they're going to want something, or need help, and no one is going to be there.
Imagine a circus like this, and OP somehow convinces the two dramatic siblings to actually pay a few $K to walk away?Because OP would never, ever be rid of them.
Instead, imagine one dramatic sibling demanding that she be paid over $10K cash (or sent $10K via Venmo) by the end of the day TODAY, because that is a conversation that just happened . . . not even two weeks since the death. This was a quick death too, as deaths go, not a prolonged illness where bills piled up. No offer to provide receipts for anything, no polite request to work together to figure things out, just a nasty and rude demand for money immediately "for the bills."
We may be the only people she knows who do have that amount of money easily accessible today, although thankfully our stealth wealth means we can deny having it, but it's going to be a no from us anyway. Which is sad, because if she was decent on any level we would just pay for things and help her sort it out (or at least take the necessary steps get it all taken care of by someone else who is competent.) My God, this is so ugly.
Instead, imagine one dramatic sibling demanding that she be paid over $10K cash (or sent $10K via Venmo) by the end of the day TODAY, because that is a conversation that just happened . . . not even two weeks since the death. This was a quick death too, as deaths go, not a prolonged illness where bills piled up. No offer to provide receipts for anything, no polite request to work together to figure things out, just a nasty and rude demand for money immediately "for the bills."
We may be the only people she knows who do have that amount of money easily accessible today, although thankfully our stealth wealth means we can deny having it, but it's going to be a no from us anyway. Which is sad, because if she was decent on any level we would just pay for things and help her sort it out (or at least take the necessary steps get it all taken care of by someone else who is competent.) My God, this is so ugly.
Wow.
This is when my, "we have no extra cash" speech comes in handy. And it is also true, if a bit misleading (especially when inferences are made by a spendthrift). It's true because none of our money is "extra".
Is this supposedly for bills related to the estate? What $10,000 bills come up in two weeks?
First of all, you don't owe anyone anything as far as the estate goes. Neither does your sibling.
The estate owes the money. The only way you can become liable is if you voluntarily choose to accept something that has a debt attached to it. You can just refuse the item and leave it and the debt for the estate to settle.
If you notify any reasonable and/or competent business that the person who owes them money has died and the paperwork for being the executor has not yet been received, they'll know you simply can't pay them yet and they will wait. Utility companies know this. So do credit cards, mortgage holders, car finance companies, etc. Ditto for doctors and hospitals.
So, unless it's some loan collectors from the local loan shark equipped with some baseball bats, there's simply little reason for that kind of urgency.
If there truly is an emergency, then it should be easily explainable and independently verifiable.
Wow.
This is when my, "we have no extra cash" speech comes in handy. And it is also true, if a bit misleading (especially when inferences are made by a spendthrift). It's true because none of our money is "extra".
Is this supposedly for bills related to the estate? What $10,000 bills come up in two weeks?
That was fast.
I'm not a lawyer/don't know where you are, so I'll start from that point. I happen to have walked through these types of things with some people, though. To your questions, here's what I would do and why:
First, a lawyer can't just up and decide to take over someone's estate. Instead, in general, a person involved must ask for that--someone who has an interest has to ask for that. So someone would have to get involved, most likely, to make that happen.
I don't know how it works where you are, but in many places you'd have to go to court, notify the other siblings, and convince a judge to appoint some other lawyer to run things (which might be easy to do in this case). All at your own cost initially, since clearly, these guys aren't going to agree to let anyone else control it but themselves.
So, what would I do?
1. Consult a lawyer now, even if you don't plan to sue or be involved. For instance, you mentioned a house. I'm guessing they won't pay taxes on it until ownership is decided. Maybe they'll fight over who lives there. They'll surely fight over who pays what.
The third heir - the honest person - will be on the hook too, though, and may get tagged for debts due for the house/estate eventually. It can become a mess; I've seen a relative sued for foreclosure over a house she disclaimed and didn't want. It was just good that she wasn't trying to get a mortgage at the time. (Ditto suits if someone gets injured there.) You may want to figure out a reasonable exit plan, even if that's just to disclaim whatever you may have been entitled to.
2. Hire a lawyer if you plan to take any action steps, though at least consult one regardless. Go to a lawyer you know and trust. You ultimately want a good estate litigation lawyer in the area near where this house/estate is (i.e. in that state and not too far away). But you may not know one, so find a lawyer that you do know and trust to help you find the right lawyer. That'll help in many ways, and it protects you to some extent against getting some weird scumbag.
Short answer is that you need a consult if not a lawyer for the longer term. Depends on what your loved one wants to do, but the best way to decide that is to go lay it all out for a lawyer and weigh the options.
Since there's a house, I would assume that this whole fiasco will be long and ugly until. Eventually, a bank may foreclose for debts on the house, or a government will, for taxes (and taxes may take years upon years), or the courts will ultimately take it over. All of those futures will are messy and probably a long ways away.
Houses are hard to sell without: (1) the titled owner or (2) agreement among those who remain. So you may as well get some legal help to figure out what to do. You'll rest better even if the best option is to sit on it for ten years and do nothing.
Besides, the lawyer may give you devilish lawyer ideas like (**consult a lawyer first!!**): do nothing until the brothers are finally forced to create an estate in a court in order to sell the house and they are desperately fighting over who's in charge. Then send in a lawyer (or a letter) to the court to notify the judge that Brother A burned the actual will and is using that to commit fraud against both the parents and the heirs. You are ready and willing to testify and also supply the judge the names of witnesses who heard Brother A tell them that himself and have no financial interest, should this proceed, and you now request that those witnesses be called to testify. Furthermore, you have notified the police and their presence will be requested as well. You can politely suggest that you, the honest heir, don't want to profit from the Brothers' shenanigans, which have harmed everyone (including the court), and you lament that the actual will probably had thoughtful protections for Brother A, Brother B, you, and the Court from having to deal with this godawful ugly public mess that Brother A has now necessitated. Sadly though, you just can't stand to sit idly by and watch Brother A profit from theft against your parents and destruction of all that they built while these brothers smear their good reputation, so you felt it necessary to propose that the court allocate Brother A's fair share to a charity/cause that your parents liked, in their honor, since we'll never know what the will said, but we know it was worse for Brother A, and that he committed fraud to stop it. Then sit back and watch Brother A self-immolate while the court spends the rest of the case finding creative ways not to give Brother A one single dime. Because consequences.
But really, it may be better for your mental health to just do a consult and then walk away entirely in the most efficient manner possible and let the others go to war with one another while you're enjoying life somewhere far, far away.
SO thought he had found the solution to the bickering and suggested it to his siblings as a route to making things smooth and easy. DotLWaT wigged out and started hurling insults. She insists on doing it herself and now wants the others to sign something releasing her from the requirement to have a bond. So, yes, she has already been filing documents to be the estate administrator, which isn't surprising.
Apparently the bond is required by state law unless all of the other heirs are adults AND willing to sign a waiver of the bond. See how much we are learning?! The bond cannot be waived if any of the heirs are under 18. Sounds like the bond is supposed to provide some level of protection in case of mismanagement or incompetence or theft by the estate administrator. If everyone is normal, sure, sign it.
SO declined to sign that for obvious reasons. More rage. More insults. DotLWaT does not like rules or boundaries. Now says she will smear his name to anyone who will listen and that everyone already knows what a terrible person he is. Umm, okay.
It has pretty much all been via text.
Within 24 hours of the death, DotLWaT claims she spent in the neighborhood of $22000 on final arrangements (funeral, burial plot, etc). This is what she supposedly immediately needed $10K cash for. Regardless of whether or not you think it was reasonable of her to rush out and spend that amount the morning right after the death without consulting anyone, there are 3 siblings . . . so how is $10K each adding up to $22K? And why would someone need it in cash immediately?
Any normal person would ask to see receipts: DotLWaT was asked for receipts and responded that she would send them "tomorrow". That was a couple of days ago. Still nothing on that front.
So DotLWaT is going to be having money trouble shortly. Wonderful. /s
Zamboni - suggest to your SO that he place the problematic family members on mute on his phone, so that he can read and respond (or not) to messages when he's up for it, rather than getting notifications as they come in. Same with email. Filter emails to a separate folder, read all at once. It can be quite helpful.
Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead". And also since we all were prepared to pay for dads expenses before we found the money, we should be prepared to do the same for her.
Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead". And also since we all were prepared to pay for dads expenses before we found the money, we should be prepared to do the same for her.
This is hard to wrap my head around how someone could feel this way.
This is not a super crazy story, but symbolizes my family. My dad died over a year ago. He had told my two living siblings that he had "taken care" of the funeral expenses. He unexpectedly passes. Luckily he lived in an apartment and was not a packrat. The plot was already paid for, but despite covid it just being a burial and not a funeral, was close to 16k just for those expenses none of it paid ahead of time. Week or so later one of my siblings finds an envelope with 14k in it, realize this was what he meant by "taking care" of it, though it honestly wasn't enough to cover the burial let alone a full funeral. As there was no will or wishes written down it was stressful. We tell mom, please plan ahead. She has no will. Says she wants to be buried, full funeral etc. But also says she is not planning to set aside any money to pay for her wishes, (or write anything down). Also says she is going to leave all her money (hypothetical whether she will even have any assets by the time she does) to only one of the three siblings. Before my brother died she said he was going to inherit it because he "needed" it more. Now she says the same for my sister. Ironically it is the more responsible siblings who have helped her (she lives with my brother) and also have grandkids, that get cut out. Me and my brother shrug. It's not worth talking about but we asked, why leave things in a way you know will make it more difficult for the living? Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead". And also since we all were prepared to pay for dads expenses before we found the money, we should be prepared to do the same for her.
This is not a super crazy story, but symbolizes my family. My dad died over a year ago. He had told my two living siblings that he had "taken care" of the funeral expenses. He unexpectedly passes. Luckily he lived in an apartment and was not a packrat. The plot was already paid for, but despite covid it just being a burial and not a funeral, was close to 16k just for those expenses none of it paid ahead of time. Week or so later one of my siblings finds an envelope with 14k in it, realize this was what he meant by "taking care" of it, though it honestly wasn't enough to cover the burial let alone a full funeral. As there was no will or wishes written down it was stressful. We tell mom, please plan ahead. She has no will. Says she wants to be buried, full funeral etc. But also says she is not planning to set aside any money to pay for her wishes, (or write anything down). Also says she is going to leave all her money (hypothetical whether she will even have any assets by the time she does) to only one of the three siblings. Before my brother died she said he was going to inherit it because he "needed" it more. Now she says the same for my sister. Ironically it is the more responsible siblings who have helped her (she lives with my brother) and also have grandkids, that get cut out. Me and my brother shrug. It's not worth talking about but we asked, why leave things in a way you know will make it more difficult for the living? Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead". And also since we all were prepared to pay for dads expenses before we found the money, we should be prepared to do the same for her.
In this situation my relative would be getting the $700 special, which is cremation with remai s picked up in a cardboard box, then Scattered.
$16,000 Sounds like a lot to me but I suppose if there was a cost of a burial plot and you are in a high population place, and then there’s an expensive casket and vault, I suppose all that adds up.
This is not a super crazy story, but symbolizes my family. My dad died over a year ago. He had told my two living siblings that he had "taken care" of the funeral expenses. He unexpectedly passes. Luckily he lived in an apartment and was not a packrat. The plot was already paid for, but despite covid it just being a burial and not a funeral, was close to 16k just for those expenses none of it paid ahead of time. Week or so later one of my siblings finds an envelope with 14k in it, realize this was what he meant by "taking care" of it, though it honestly wasn't enough to cover the burial let alone a full funeral. As there was no will or wishes written down it was stressful. We tell mom, please plan ahead. She has no will. Says she wants to be buried, full funeral etc. But also says she is not planning to set aside any money to pay for her wishes, (or write anything down). Also says she is going to leave all her money (hypothetical whether she will even have any assets by the time she does) to only one of the three siblings. Before my brother died she said he was going to inherit it because he "needed" it more. Now she says the same for my sister. Ironically it is the more responsible siblings who have helped her (she lives with my brother) and also have grandkids, that get cut out. Me and my brother shrug. It's not worth talking about but we asked, why leave things in a way you know will make it more difficult for the living? Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead". And also since we all were prepared to pay for dads expenses before we found the money, we should be prepared to do the same for her.
In this situation my relative would be getting the $700 special, which is cremation with remai s picked up in a cardboard box, then Scattered.
$16,000 Sounds like a lot to me but I suppose if there was a cost of a burial plot and you are in a high population place, and then there’s an expensive casket and vault, I suppose all that adds up.
I was surprised how much it cost, considering there was no funeral (there was graveside service). The plot was already paid for. We did purchase a solid wood casket as that is customary but from another company so "reasonable". Other costs were: transportation from the morgue and to the gravesite. cost for opening up the plot, open (less expensive) casket cover, burial services, closing the plot, prayer cards, set of flowers, and setting of the marker (The metal burial marker was free because he was former military, but the cemetary required it was affixed to stone and then set). That alone cost around 1K.
Says she wants to be buried, full funeral etc. But also says she is not planning to set aside any money to pay for her wishes, (or write anything down). Also says she is going to leave all her money (hypothetical whether she will even have any assets by the time she does) to only one of the three siblings. Before my brother died she said he was going to inherit it because he "needed" it more. Now she says the same for my sister. Ironically it is the more responsible siblings who have helped her (she lives with my brother) and also have grandkids, that get cut out. Me and my brother shrug. It's not worth talking about but we asked, why leave things in a way you know will make it more difficult for the living? Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead".
enablers just are conditioned to keep on enabling even after they are dead.
So @Zamboni several things: first, and most important of which is THAT I AM TERRIBLY SORRY YOU AND YOUR SO ARE HAVING TO GO THROUGH THIS! That can't be said enough. This is not normal or humane behavior.
Seriously. You two may want to consider something that has helped us in the midst of awful situations: go out and have some fun some nights and try to forget about all of this. I know it's hard to do that in the midst of a tragedy, but it's also the best medicine, as folks have reminded me over the years (because I'll let the stress of it get to me).
Now, I can help as to where this is headed, as I have experience dealing with (lots of) conflicts and unreasonable situations. Actions speak louder than words, and this started with outright fraud and seizure of things that DotL (for short) had no business taking.
It's headed towards outright fraud and theft. She's going to camp on the estate, control it, and drain every thing of any possible value. It's already underway.
The estate will continue on until she converts everything that she possibly can into cash for herself, the estate goes bankrupt, and things get seized. Her cash problems will only hasten the speed of the theft.
This is someone who does what she wants, not someone who cares about paperwork, laws, and rules--that much she has shown you. I hate to tell you this, but to prepare yourself, I would prepare for maximum ugly here and start establishing those boundaries so that you can stay out of and above the drama.
Eventually, you're likely to need hard no-contact rules. Why let her drag your own emotional lives down, rather than shut her off for periods of time, and/or mediate it through a lawyer/trusted friend/someone else/ignore her completely, so that you can stay away from it all. That path is going to get increasingly attractive over time.
As I see it, there are two paths here: SO can either jump in, take over the estate, and fight it out (or, rather, employ the lawyers to do so), which would be a large emotional lift and expensive due to DotL and her inevitable shenanigans. Or you both can walk away, let her trash it all, ignore it all as it circles the drain, but preserve more of your peace and sanity. And nothing is worth more than peace and sanity...once you don't have it anymore.
Anyway, I'm sorry once again and wish you nothing but the best in dealing with a truly awful situation. There's nothing like death and money to bring out the worst in some people. But thankfully you two have each other to get through this and stay above the fray.
I was surprised how much it cost, considering there was no funeral (there was graveside service). The plot was already paid for. We did purchase a solid wood casket as that is customary but from another company so "reasonable".
+1. That's how I feel.Says she wants to be buried, full funeral etc. But also says she is not planning to set aside any money to pay for her wishes, (or write anything down). Also says she is going to leave all her money (hypothetical whether she will even have any assets by the time she does) to only one of the three siblings. Before my brother died she said he was going to inherit it because he "needed" it more. Now she says the same for my sister. Ironically it is the more responsible siblings who have helped her (she lives with my brother) and also have grandkids, that get cut out. Me and my brother shrug. It's not worth talking about but we asked, why leave things in a way you know will make it more difficult for the living? Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead".
I mean. She can't have it both ways...
The last bit rings the truest to me, so if she won't care because she'll be dead, then I'd want to take her at her word. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@Zamboni, can the named executor just “turn over the reins?” This is a legal responsibility, so I hope they have gone through proper channels to do so.
Is it? Can I name Donald Trump as the executor of my estate and force him to work for me once I'm dead?
Not so much a concern about a lawyer out to be malicious. But in any profession, if I just pick the first person I happen to see a sign for, I’d never know if they’re gonna half-ass it, especially if it isn’t a lot of income for them to do a simple will? My friend group used to be primarily childless PhD students, so I wouldn’t think any of them would have a recommendation. Though I suppose I could ask some of my kid and/or asset having local friends who might actually have a will drafted. Seems a weird topic of conversation to bring up I guess, haha.It's not at all a weird discussion to have. We drafted our will and trust with a local attorney that we found by asking local friends with kids and houses.
This is a cautionary tale for parents leaving their children money. In my opinion, the child didn't do anything wrong. However, they were not mature enough and/or not emotionally ready to handle an inheritance of 250K.
My brother-in-law shared a story of a mutual friend who broke up with their girlfriend. The girlfriend was in their early to mid 20's and was gifted 250K of life insurance when her mom died a few years ago. She is a college grad and has a full-time job. Before the death she was able to fully support herself. However, after the death she was emotionally devastated and spent 200K of the 250K over the course of 3 years. She has nothing to show for it other than a car. At one point, she owned two cars. However, she has since sold the second car.
What type of guard rails could you put up for your children to try to avoid this? Can anything be done?
This is a cautionary tale for parents leaving their children money. In my opinion, the child didn't do anything wrong. However, they were not mature enough and/or not emotionally ready to handle an inheritance of 250K.The only durable guard rails I can think of are:- staggering the release of the life insurance payout- raising your kids with non-materialistic values
My brother-in-law shared a story of a mutual friend who broke up with their girlfriend. The girlfriend was in their early to mid 20's and was gifted 250K of life insurance when her mom died a few years ago. She is a college grad and has a full-time job. Before the death she was able to fully support herself. However, after the death she was emotionally devastated and spent 200K of the 250K over the course of 3 years. She has nothing to show for it other than a car. At one point, she owned two cars. However, she has since sold the second car.
What type of guard rails could you put up for your children to try to avoid this? Can anything be done?
This is a cautionary tale for parents leaving their children money. In my opinion, the child didn't do anything wrong. However, they were not mature enough and/or not emotionally ready to handle an inheritance of 250K.The only durable guard rails I can think of are:- staggering the release of the life insurance payout- raising your kids with non-materialistic values
My brother-in-law shared a story of a mutual friend who broke up with their girlfriend. The girlfriend was in their early to mid 20's and was gifted 250K of life insurance when her mom died a few years ago. She is a college grad and has a full-time job. Before the death she was able to fully support herself. However, after the death she was emotionally devastated and spent 200K of the 250K over the course of 3 years. She has nothing to show for it other than a car. At one point, she owned two cars. However, she has since sold the second car.
What type of guard rails could you put up for your children to try to avoid this? Can anything be done?
Otherwise, not much else to be done except hope that your kids hold on to those values after you pass.
This is a cautionary tale for parents leaving their children money. In my opinion, the child didn't do anything wrong. However, they were not mature enough and/or not emotionally ready to handle an inheritance of 250K.The only durable guard rails I can think of are:- staggering the release of the life insurance payout- raising your kids with non-materialistic values
My brother-in-law shared a story of a mutual friend who broke up with their girlfriend. The girlfriend was in their early to mid 20's and was gifted 250K of life insurance when her mom died a few years ago. She is a college grad and has a full-time job. Before the death she was able to fully support herself. However, after the death she was emotionally devastated and spent 200K of the 250K over the course of 3 years. She has nothing to show for it other than a car. At one point, she owned two cars. However, she has since sold the second car.
What type of guard rails could you put up for your children to try to avoid this? Can anything be done?
Otherwise, not much else to be done except hope that your kids hold on to those values after you pass.
I know my mother put a staggered release of funds in her will when we were younger. It was possible to get larger payments but only after the permission of a specially appointed trustee or a judge. The person who was appointed as a trustee was a proto-mustachian. This part was removed from the will when we all proved to be sensible with money.
Other than those options, there's not much you can do either way except raise your children well. I know of people who were in their 50s with a comfortable income who blew through an inhertance in no time, I also know a person who inherited a fairly large amount of money at the age of 18, made a mess of their whole life for years, but never ever touched the inheritance in their savings account. Still has it as far as I know, waiting to be used as a downpayment on a property some day (not the best option from a mustachian point of view, but there are lots of worse things to do with a 6-figure inheritance than putting it in a savings account and buying a family home eventually).
Not so much a concern about a lawyer out to be malicious. But in any profession, if I just pick the first person I happen to see a sign for, I’d never know if they’re gonna half-ass it, especially if it isn’t a lot of income for them to do a simple will? My friend group used to be primarily childless PhD students, so I wouldn’t think any of them would have a recommendation. Though I suppose I could ask some of my kid and/or asset having local friends who might actually have a will drafted. Seems a weird topic of conversation to bring up I guess, haha.
We received lawyer recommendations from two people: the guy who finalized our term life insurance (you have that too, right?), and some friends we play cards with. Then I ended up going with a friend from college who had become a lawyer. He sent me a boilerplate questionaire over email, drew up a draft quick, and then we met at a copy shop to get it all signed and notarized.Hahaha. Did I mention we need to be adults? We gotta figure out life insurance too. My old workplace had an option. But now neither of our workplaces offer it.
From what you describe, you should be able to get everything you need (will, healthcare power of attorney) for about $300-500. I'd be skeptical of anyone who says it needs to cost more than that unless you already have millionaires of dollars and need a trust to avoid taxes.
You should definitely have a will with name guardians unless you want your child to end up in the foster care system temporarily in the event of your untimely death.
Hahaha. Did I mention we need to be adults? We gotta figure out life insurance too. My old workplace had an option. But now neither of our workplaces offer it.
Tbh, temporary foster care would be preferable to my closest (physical proximity) relative - my mother - swooping in for temporary custody.
I still can't believe that crazy turn with the will: yet more evidence of my theory that God has a sense of irony.
Having been through awfulness, there is one lone upside of dealing with crazy people: it leaves you in a situation to (hopefully) share something of use to someone like you who's just now in the midst of crazy, in hopes of helping you pull through in a better fashion without having to learn some things the hard way. I'm impressed that Mr. Z is already no-contact; you both are ahead of the situation and that will serve you well.
This is a cautionary tale for parents leaving their children money. In my opinion, the child didn't do anything wrong. However, they were not mature enough and/or not emotionally ready to handle an inheritance of 250K.
My brother-in-law shared a story of a mutual friend who broke up with their girlfriend. The girlfriend was in their early to mid 20's and was gifted 250K of life insurance when her mom died a few years ago. She is a college grad and has a full-time job. Before the death she was able to fully support herself. However, after the death she was emotionally devastated and spent 200K of the 250K over the course of 3 years. She has nothing to show for it other than a car. At one point, she owned two cars. However, she has since sold the second car.
What type of guard rails could you put up for your children to try to avoid this? Can anything be done?
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
It's definitely had an impact on how I want my estate plans to look. My kid's guardianship will be separated from the money. My parents would be the current choice for guardianship, but a trustee would release funds at regular intervals. I'm not saying that my parents would have him living under the stairs like Harry Potter, but I bet he'd end up taking a whole lot of cruises on his dime.
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Ha, if you want cheap - I've been clear that I'm perfectly happy (and would actually prefer) if someone wants to slap together a box from the plywood and lumber I have in the garage. Then invite guests to draw/paint/whatever on it.
In a nod to the old tradition of having a bell, perhaps I should ask to be buried with my bicycle bell.
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Ha, if you want cheap - I've been clear that I'm perfectly happy (and would actually prefer) if someone wants to slap together a box from the plywood and lumber I have in the garage. Then invite guests to draw/paint/whatever on it.
In a nod to the old tradition of having a bell, perhaps I should ask to be buried with my bicycle bell.
I wish to be buried with a machete, just in case I come back as a zombie.
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Ha, if you want cheap - I've been clear that I'm perfectly happy (and would actually prefer) if someone wants to slap together a box from the plywood and lumber I have in the garage. Then invite guests to draw/paint/whatever on it.
In a nod to the old tradition of having a bell, perhaps I should ask to be buried with my bicycle bell.
I wish to be buried with a machete, just in case I come back as a zombie.
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Ha, if you want cheap - I've been clear that I'm perfectly happy (and would actually prefer) if someone wants to slap together a box from the plywood and lumber I have in the garage. Then invite guests to draw/paint/whatever on it.
In a nod to the old tradition of having a bell, perhaps I should ask to be buried with my bicycle bell.
I wish to be buried with a machete, just in case I come back as a zombie.
Wouldn't a hand axe or hatchet do better for chopping your way out of the coffin?
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Ha, if you want cheap - I've been clear that I'm perfectly happy (and would actually prefer) if someone wants to slap together a box from the plywood and lumber I have in the garage. Then invite guests to draw/paint/whatever on it.
In a nod to the old tradition of having a bell, perhaps I should ask to be buried with my bicycle bell.
I wish to be buried with a machete, just in case I come back as a zombie.
Wouldn't a hand axe or hatchet do better for chopping your way out of the coffin?
Hmm, I was planning on cremation, but how do I reincarnate as a zombie if I am just a pile of ashes?
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Ha, if you want cheap - I've been clear that I'm perfectly happy (and would actually prefer) if someone wants to slap together a box from the plywood and lumber I have in the garage. Then invite guests to draw/paint/whatever on it.
In a nod to the old tradition of having a bell, perhaps I should ask to be buried with my bicycle bell.
I wish to be buried with a machete, just in case I come back as a zombie.
Wouldn't a hand axe or hatchet do better for chopping your way out of the coffin?
Hmm, I was planning on cremation, but how do I reincarnate as a zombie if I am just a pile of ashes?
I thought they were being considerate of others and providing a means nearby for someone to dispatch them if necessary...
I have a membership! But we were on a time crunch. We did purchase a nice casket from "best price" caskets that was flown up in time for all the preparations. Recommend.I was surprised how much it cost, considering there was no funeral (there was graveside service). The plot was already paid for. We did purchase a solid wood casket as that is customary but from another company so "reasonable".
https://www.costco.com/funeral-caskets.html
Zamboni - has anyone told the ex-spouse they are in the will? If they have a grudge vs DotW, they may be willing to take up cudgels. As it were.
Zamboni and the other sane siblings could sell tickets, as a way of getting what they deserved from the estate in the first place! :PZamboni - has anyone told the ex-spouse they are in the will? If they have a grudge vs DotW, they may be willing to take up cudgels. As it were.
that might be an even match : )
I'd agree that paying out smaller portions over time and raising money-smart adults are the best two options.
Zamboni - has anyone told the ex-spouse they are in the will? If they have a grudge vs DotW, they may be willing to take up cudgels. As it were.
The attorney who advised me, when my daughter was one and I got my first will, set up a revocable trust with my assets rolling over to that trust upon my death. (A trust can be named as the beneficiary for life insurance, investment accounts, etc.) I had a friend willing to be trustee and the terms (again recommended by the attorney) provided that until my daughter was 26 the trustee was in charge of the money and could use it to support her and for things like college and for travel. At 26 she would get 25% of the remaining money, at 30 she would get 30% of the remaining money, at 35 she would get 50% and the rest at age 40. I was always very responsible with money so I was prepared to have it go to her at 25, but the attorney advised me that no one can predict how a one year old will be with money and my assets were likely to much higher by the time of my death.
So, is there a recommended way to set up trusts for someone who won't be responsible with money? I've seen all kinds of different payout ages and frequency of payment. Unless the person gets a monthly stipend for life it seems like there is no way to protect against someone blowing through money, even though I agree one lump payment seems the worst of all. I wonder if there is a happy medium, that is less work for an executor but give the person "training wheels" so to speak.
So, is there a recommended way to set up trusts for someone who won't be responsible with money? I've seen all kinds of different payout ages and frequency of payment. Unless the person gets a monthly stipend for life it seems like there is no way to protect against someone blowing through money, even though I agree one lump payment seems the worst of all. I wonder if there is a happy medium, that is less work for an executor but give the person "training wheels" so to speak.If you haven't managed to "train" someone in your lifetime then expecting someone else to succeed where you have failed is unreasonable.
So, is there a recommended way to set up trusts for someone who won't be responsible with money? I've seen all kinds of different payout ages and frequency of payment. Unless the person gets a monthly stipend for life it seems like there is no way to protect against someone blowing through money, even though I agree one lump payment seems the worst of all. I wonder if there is a happy medium, that is less work for an executor but give the person "training wheels" so to speak.
The only other approach I know of is the film "Brewster's Millions". But the person receiving the money had the capacity to learn from it, and the willful lack of that capacity is why most plans fail. Even monthly payments can be squandered in 2-4 days leaving the rest of the month with no money.
I think splitting among the children/grandchildren is a good idea. Otherwise, the parent with only one child ends up being far wealthier than the other grandchildren and that might foment some distrust among the family.
There is some tax advantage to skipping generations if there's a lot of money in the estate, but I'm assuming they weren't close to that line.
At the age most people are living to now (SO and I have 5 grandparents and 4 parents still living between the 2 of us) So I really don't expect to inherit anything until I'm passed 50 or even 60 years old. I'd have waay more than enough money and if my parents wanted to skip me on inheritance and go straight to the grandchildren / charity, I think that would be a fine decision.
At the age most people are living to now (SO and I have 5 grandparents and 4 parents still living between the 2 of us) So I really don't expect to inherit anything until I'm passed 50 or even 60 years old. I'd have waay more than enough money and if my parents wanted to skip me on inheritance and go straight to the grandchildren / charity, I think that would be a fine decision.
And on the other side, the parent who has only one child may feel like they're being punished for the choices of their sibling.
I think splitting among the children/grandchildren is a good idea. Otherwise, the parent with only one child ends up being far wealthier than the other grandchildren and that might foment some distrust among the family.
There is some tax advantage to skipping generations if there's a lot of money in the estate, but I'm assuming they weren't close to that line.
At the age most people are living to now (SO and I have 5 grandparents and 4 parents still living between the 2 of us) So I really don't expect to inherit anything until I'm passed 50 or even 60 years old. I'd have waay more than enough money and if my parents wanted to skip me on inheritance and go straight to the grandchildren / charity, I think that would be a fine decision.
And on the other side, the parent who has only one child may feel like they're being punished for the choices of their sibling.
I think splitting among the children/grandchildren is a good idea. Otherwise, the parent with only one child ends up being far wealthier than the other grandchildren and that might foment some distrust among the family.
There is some tax advantage to skipping generations if there's a lot of money in the estate, but I'm assuming they weren't close to that line.
At the age most people are living to now (SO and I have 5 grandparents and 4 parents still living between the 2 of us) So I really don't expect to inherit anything until I'm passed 50 or even 60 years old. I'd have waay more than enough money and if my parents wanted to skip me on inheritance and go straight to the grandchildren / charity, I think that would be a fine decision.
And on the other side, the parent who has only one child may feel like they're being punished for the choices of their sibling.
I'd like to think that my siblings wouldn't quibble, but then again only 2/4 even have children. (And I kind of assume they won't) So perhaps I'm just biased for passing on the wealth to the next generation.
I think though that it would be unfair to make the grandparents choose between fairly distributing between their children or their grandchildren. Especially if their grandchildren have been around a long time, then they love them too. And I'd like to think that if I were a grandparent, I'd want to treat all of my descendants as fairly and equitably as possible.
The number of children may be the choice of siblings, but that has a direct impact on the grandparents' legacy. Those siblings are building out the family tree, and funding that to be as healthy and taken care of as possible is important. It's in the grandparents' interest to treat them equitably, no matter whose children they are.
At the very least, giving an equal share to all parents and grandparents is a good way of splitting that baby. The children get a share that they will likely only pass to their children, and the grandchildren get a share that helps equality and also helps them get a jump start in life. (70 year old parents shouldn't need additional 6 figures, but 30 year old grandchildren will be in the perfect time in their life for needing a down payment, a business start up, or continuing education.) 30k to a 30 year old is far more valuable than 100k to a 60-70 year old imo.
One thing I've seen done: The grandparents, while living, give an equal sum to each grandchild at birth, where it'll have 18 years to compound, and when the grandparents pass away, their estate is divided equally among their immediate children (i.e. grandkids' parents). The idea is that each grandkid gets an reasonably equal benefit, the parents have to worry less about paying for college, and the parents themselves are treated equally when the grandparents pass away.
I have to say, it's kind of weird to be debating what's "fair" when dividing up money among people who didn't earn it.
One thing I've seen done: The grandparents, while living, give an equal sum to each grandchild at birth, where it'll have 18 years to compound, and when the grandparents pass away, their estate is divided equally among their immediate children (i.e. grandkids' parents). The idea is that each grandkid gets an reasonably equal benefit, the parents have to worry less about paying for college, and the parents themselves are treated equally when the grandparents pass away.
I have to say, it's kind of weird to be debating what's "fair" when dividing up money among people who didn't earn it.
If you haven't managed to "train" someone in your lifetime then expecting someone else to succeed where you have failed is unreasonable.
I think though that it would be unfair to make the grandparents choose between fairly distributing between their children or their grandchildren.
I think though that it would be unfair to make the grandparents choose between fairly distributing between their children or their grandchildren.
We should all remember that these choices are entirely cultural. What is "fair" varies between societies and there is no objective right or wrong. Obviously, if expectations are different, then conflicts can arise.
For intestate individuals, different jurisdictions will default to different choices:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_stirpes
I think splitting among the children/grandchildren is a good idea. Otherwise, the parent with only one child ends up being far wealthier than the other grandchildren and that might foment some distrust among the family.
There is some tax advantage to skipping generations if there's a lot of money in the estate, but I'm assuming they weren't close to that line.
At the age most people are living to now (SO and I have 5 grandparents and 4 parents still living between the 2 of us) So I really don't expect to inherit anything until I'm passed 50 or even 60 years old. I'd have waay more than enough money and if my parents wanted to skip me on inheritance and go straight to the grandchildren / charity, I think that would be a fine decision.
And on the other side, the parent who has only one child may feel like they're being punished for the choices of their sibling.
I'd like to think that my siblings wouldn't quibble, but then again only 2/4 even have children. (And I kind of assume they won't) So perhaps I'm just biased for passing on the wealth to the next generation.
I think though that it would be unfair to make the grandparents choose between fairly distributing between their children or their grandchildren. Especially if their grandchildren have been around a long time, then they love them too. And I'd like to think that if I were a grandparent, I'd want to treat all of my descendants as fairly and equitably as possible.
The number of children may be the choice of siblings, but that has a direct impact on the grandparents' legacy. Those siblings are building out the family tree, and funding that to be as healthy and taken care of as possible is important. It's in the grandparents' interest to treat them equitably, no matter whose children they are.
At the very least, giving an equal share to all parents and grandparents is a good way of splitting that baby. The children get a share that they will likely only pass to their children, and the grandchildren get a share that helps equality and also helps them get a jump start in life. (70 year old parents shouldn't need additional 6 figures, but 30 year old grandchildren will be in the perfect time in their life for needing a down payment, a business start up, or continuing education.) 30k to a 30 year old is far more valuable than 100k to a 60-70 year old imo.
I think splitting among the children/grandchildren is a good idea. Otherwise, the parent with only one child ends up being far wealthier than the other grandchildren and that might foment some distrust among the family.
There is some tax advantage to skipping generations if there's a lot of money in the estate, but I'm assuming they weren't close to that line.
At the age most people are living to now (SO and I have 5 grandparents and 4 parents still living between the 2 of us) So I really don't expect to inherit anything until I'm passed 50 or even 60 years old. I'd have waay more than enough money and if my parents wanted to skip me on inheritance and go straight to the grandchildren / charity, I think that would be a fine decision.
And on the other side, the parent who has only one child may feel like they're being punished for the choices of their sibling.
I'd like to think that my siblings wouldn't quibble, but then again only 2/4 even have children. (And I kind of assume they won't) So perhaps I'm just biased for passing on the wealth to the next generation.
I think though that it would be unfair to make the grandparents choose between fairly distributing between their children or their grandchildren. Especially if their grandchildren have been around a long time, then they love them too. And I'd like to think that if I were a grandparent, I'd want to treat all of my descendants as fairly and equitably as possible.
The number of children may be the choice of siblings, but that has a direct impact on the grandparents' legacy. Those siblings are building out the family tree, and funding that to be as healthy and taken care of as possible is important. It's in the grandparents' interest to treat them equitably, no matter whose children they are.
At the very least, giving an equal share to all parents and grandparents is a good way of splitting that baby. The children get a share that they will likely only pass to their children, and the grandchildren get a share that helps equality and also helps them get a jump start in life. (70 year old parents shouldn't need additional 6 figures, but 30 year old grandchildren will be in the perfect time in their life for needing a down payment, a business start up, or continuing education.) 30k to a 30 year old is far more valuable than 100k to a 60-70 year old imo.
Perhaps. In my family there is a situation where there are two siblings. One sibling has one child while the other has four. The sibling with four children has already received a lot in the way of economic outpatient care, including two mostly-funded international moves, more than one graduate degree, and significant help buying a house. The sibling with one child has received some financial support, but is also the one that is local to the parents and has provided a lot of practical support while the parents have been ill. That one already feels as if their sibling is the "favorite" and splitting the estate 5 ways where one branch gets 4/5 as opposed to 1/2 would just be seen as a final slap in the face.
Or worse, that income stream can probably be borrowed against so that soon all future income ends up going straight to creditors.
@DadJokes that certainly does sound like it's becoming messy.
Having recently been adjacent to similar petty-level drama, I'll ask this:
is DQ indigent? If not, then seriously: who cares about $475? I know, I know, it's the principle of the matter. But, everything you've written indicates to me that SM is in a heap of financial trouble. Does SM work outside the home?
Sounds like the lawyer has probably informed SM that, in the absence of a will, she is inheriting everything except beneficiary-designated assets. The tools have value and can be sold. Yes, it is shitty that she has gone out of her way to steal even tools that weren't his and that she is hoarding things (probably even sentimental things that might have no real value) from the rest of the family. She likely is freaking out and worried that she will need to sell everything that isn't nailed down to survive.
Don't be surprised if she puts the entire farm on the market shortly . . . in her eyes, this year's harvest might be fairly irrelevant at this point. She might even be hoping to sell it really fast before harvest is due, which makes the harvest someone else's problem while she is counting her cash from the sale. Since it's October, I doubt any sale will happen that fast, but that might be where her brain is. Or maybe a lawyer has advised her she can apply for a govt farm subsidy if she doesn't harvest the crops? (yes, that is a thing people do in the USA.)
Again, sorry your wife got pulled into the mess. I suspect DQ is screwed and SM will prevail.
Written estate planning is especially important in 2nd and 3rd marriages unless you want your own biological kids to get nothing while your step son (who treats you like dirt and acts like a jackass at Thanksgiving) ultimately inherits all of your stuff and money when your second wife finally passes and gets buried in that plot right next to you.
This isn't super dramatic but... my parents are frugal and well off, retired with very little chance of running out of money. They've told my sister and I several times they plan on leaving their money as an inheritance to us.
My low estimate of their invested assets is 2 Million dollars. I found out recently their current money manager is taking a 3% fee! So they're paying at least 60k annually to have their investments managed. It's particularly egregious considering their typical annual spending is only around 50k.
Thankfully my sister and I aren't depending on any money, but it's still outrageous!
3% - seems maybe more likely than your standard financial advisor to be doing some kind of Fraud. High price can make it seem more legit - "you get what you pay for" and such.Not necessarily fraud, per se, Edward Jones, perhaps?
3% - seems maybe more likely than your standard financial advisor to be doing some kind of Fraud. High price can make it seem more legit - "you get what you pay for" and such.Not necessarily fraud, per se, Edward Jones, perhaps?
In a Mustachian Venn Diagram of Fraud, of course it is!3% - seems maybe more likely than your standard financial advisor to be doing some kind of Fraud. High price can make it seem more legit - "you get what you pay for" and such.Not necessarily fraud, per se, Edward Jones, perhaps?
You're saying that in a Venn diagram of Fraud and Edward Jones that EJ isn't totally contained within the Fraud circle?
This isn't super dramatic but... my parents are frugal and well off, retired with very little chance of running out of money. They've told my sister and I several times they plan on leaving their money as an inheritance to us.
My low estimate of their invested assets is 2 Million dollars. I found out recently their current money manager is taking a 3% fee! So they're paying at least 60k annually to have their investments managed. It's particularly egregious considering their typical annual spending is only around 50k.
Thankfully my sister and I aren't depending on any money, but it's still outrageous!
This isn't super dramatic but... my parents are frugal and well off, retired with very little chance of running out of money. They've told my sister and I several times they plan on leaving their money as an inheritance to us.
My low estimate of their invested assets is 2 Million dollars. I found out recently their current money manager is taking a 3% fee! So they're paying at least 60k annually to have their investments managed. It's particularly egregious considering their typical annual spending is only around 50k.
Thankfully my sister and I aren't depending on any money, but it's still outrageous!
Unfortunately, I had a close family member pass away several months ago. As the executor of the estate, I found he was in a similar situation - but with far less total amount. Same type of deal, the company managing his assets were taking between 2-3% and had him invested in all kinds of crazy mutual funds with high fees, plus several individual stocks that I'm sure my relative had no clue what they were. It took a while, but I got everything moved over to Vanguard and into low cost mutual funds.
I looked at the returns he was getting, and it only ended up being around 4% annually during this crazy bull market.
The ironic part is when I told the advisor I was moving everything he said "Good luck with that..." in reference to his thought that I couldn't do better than his performance.
This isn't super dramatic but... my parents are frugal and well off, retired with very little chance of running out of money. They've told my sister and I several times they plan on leaving their money as an inheritance to us.
My low estimate of their invested assets is 2 Million dollars. I found out recently their current money manager is taking a 3% fee! So they're paying at least 60k annually to have their investments managed. It's particularly egregious considering their typical annual spending is only around 50k.
Thankfully my sister and I aren't depending on any money, but it's still outrageous!
Unfortunately, I had a close family member pass away several months ago. As the executor of the estate, I found he was in a similar situation - but with far less total amount. Same type of deal, the company managing his assets were taking between 2-3% and had him invested in all kinds of crazy mutual funds with high fees, plus several individual stocks that I'm sure my relative had no clue what they were. It took a while, but I got everything moved over to Vanguard and into low cost mutual funds.
I looked at the returns he was getting, and it only ended up being around 4% annually during this crazy bull market.
The ironic part is when I told the advisor I was moving everything he said "Good luck with that..." in reference to his thought that I couldn't do better than his performance.
That kind of stuff makes me wonder. Was it just a sarcastic snide comment to hopefully make you feel bad or maybe reconsider, or are these people ignorant enough they truly buy in on what they're selling?
This isn't super dramatic but... my parents are frugal and well off, retired with very little chance of running out of money. They've told my sister and I several times they plan on leaving their money as an inheritance to us.
My low estimate of their invested assets is 2 Million dollars. I found out recently their current money manager is taking a 3% fee! So they're paying at least 60k annually to have their investments managed. It's particularly egregious considering their typical annual spending is only around 50k.
Thankfully my sister and I aren't depending on any money, but it's still outrageous!
Unfortunately, I had a close family member pass away several months ago. As the executor of the estate, I found he was in a similar situation - but with far less total amount. Same type of deal, the company managing his assets were taking between 2-3% and had him invested in all kinds of crazy mutual funds with high fees, plus several individual stocks that I'm sure my relative had no clue what they were. It took a while, but I got everything moved over to Vanguard and into low cost mutual funds.
I looked at the returns he was getting, and it only ended up being around 4% annually during this crazy bull market.
The ironic part is when I told the advisor I was moving everything he said "Good luck with that..." in reference to his thought that I couldn't do better than his performance.
That kind of stuff makes me wonder. Was it just a sarcastic snide comment to hopefully make you feel bad or maybe reconsider, or are these people ignorant enough they truly buy in on what they're selling?
Honestly, I think it was ignorance rather than sarcasm....I think he truly thought he helped my relative out.
This isn't super dramatic but... my parents are frugal and well off, retired with very little chance of running out of money. They've told my sister and I several times they plan on leaving their money as an inheritance to us.
My low estimate of their invested assets is 2 Million dollars. I found out recently their current money manager is taking a 3% fee! So they're paying at least 60k annually to have their investments managed. It's particularly egregious considering their typical annual spending is only around 50k.
Thankfully my sister and I aren't depending on any money, but it's still outrageous!
Unfortunately, I had a close family member pass away several months ago. As the executor of the estate, I found he was in a similar situation - but with far less total amount. Same type of deal, the company managing his assets were taking between 2-3% and had him invested in all kinds of crazy mutual funds with high fees, plus several individual stocks that I'm sure my relative had no clue what they were. It took a while, but I got everything moved over to Vanguard and into low cost mutual funds.
I looked at the returns he was getting, and it only ended up being around 4% annually during this crazy bull market.
The ironic part is when I told the advisor I was moving everything he said "Good luck with that..." in reference to his thought that I couldn't do better than his performance.
That kind of stuff makes me wonder. Was it just a sarcastic snide comment to hopefully make you feel bad or maybe reconsider, or are these people ignorant enough they truly buy in on what they're selling?
Honestly, I think it was ignorance rather than sarcasm....I think he truly thought he helped my relative out.
If his head is 100% in an active trading world or where everything has a 3% fee, I can see where he would think that. Not everyone is in IVV
Also there is the old saying "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
My grandpa had most of his stuff with Raymond James and after his passing some family inherited it and decided to leave it with them. I mentioned the fees to them but did not push to hard as I figured them not touching it was probably better than them trying to do something without really knowing what they are doing or selling it all at the first down turn and never rebuying. An imperfect plan today is better than a prefect one tomorrow.
Unfortunately, I had a close family member pass away several months ago. As the executor of the estate, I found he was in a similar situation - but with far less total amount. Same type of deal, the company managing his assets were taking between 2-3% and had him invested in all kinds of crazy mutual funds with high fees, plus several individual stocks that I'm sure my relative had no clue what they were. It took a while, but I got everything moved over to Vanguard and into low cost mutual funds.
I looked at the returns he was getting, and it only ended up being around 4% annually during this crazy bull market.
The ironic part is when I told the advisor I was moving everything he said "Good luck with that..." in reference to his thought that I couldn't do better than his performance.
That kind of stuff makes me wonder. Was it just a sarcastic snide comment to hopefully make you feel bad or maybe reconsider, or are these people ignorant enough they truly buy in on what they're selling?
Honestly, I think it was ignorance rather than sarcasm....I think he truly thought he helped my relative out.
Think of the number of examples we see in the MMM forums of people who instantly blow every dime they get when they get their hands on money. These advisors were trained in an environment where everyone is either like that, or they "wisely" save with a management company like theirs. They aren't meeting the people who can save on their own, like most of us on these forums.
So @Zamboni several things: first, and most important of which is THAT I AM TERRIBLY SORRY YOU AND YOUR SO ARE HAVING TO GO THROUGH THIS! That can't be said enough. This is not normal or humane behavior.
Seriously. You two may want to consider something that has helped us in the midst of awful situations: go out and have some fun some nights and try to forget about all of this. I know it's hard to do that in the midst of a tragedy, but it's also the best medicine, as folks have reminded me over the years (because I'll let the stress of it get to me).
Now, I can help as to where this is headed, as I have experience dealing with (lots of) conflicts and unreasonable situations. Actions speak louder than words, and this started with outright fraud and seizure of things that DotL (for short) had no business taking.
It's headed towards outright fraud and theft. She's going to camp on the estate, control it, and drain every thing of any possible value. It's already underway.
The estate will continue on until she converts everything that she possibly can into cash for herself, the estate goes bankrupt, and things get seized. Her cash problems will only hasten the speed of the theft.
This is someone who does what she wants, not someone who cares about paperwork, laws, and rules--that much she has shown you. I hate to tell you this, but to prepare yourself, I would prepare for maximum ugly here and start establishing those boundaries so that you can stay out of and above the drama.
Eventually, you're likely to need hard no-contact rules. Why let her drag your own emotional lives down, rather than shut her off for periods of time, and/or mediate it through a lawyer/trusted friend/someone else/ignore her completely, so that you can stay away from it all. That path is going to get increasingly attractive over time.
As I see it, there are two paths here: SO can either jump in, take over the estate, and fight it out (or, rather, employ the lawyers to do so), which would be a large emotional lift and expensive due to DotL and her inevitable shenanigans. Or you both can walk away, let her trash it all, ignore it all as it circles the drain, but preserve more of your peace and sanity. And nothing is worth more than peace and sanity...once you don't have it anymore.
Anyway, I'm sorry once again and wish you nothing but the best in dealing with a truly awful situation. There's nothing like death and money to bring out the worst in some people. But thankfully you two have each other to get through this and stay above the fray.
Thanks again for this. We decided to go on vacation to a tropical paradise this past weekend . . . that was a great idea!
Your predictions are so spot on.
Updates about the Destroyer of the Last Will and Testament (DotLWaT!, DotLW for short):
-DotLW got so mad that Mr. Zamboni wouldn't send her money for "the bills" that she threatened no contact with him . . . a threat that of course she just can't make good on because of her continuous need to send rude texts and demand things. And then there was the whole emergence of another copy of a will wrinkle she hadn't anticipated. So she's already followed up several times since then. *Eyeroll*
-Mr. Zamboni has decided that No Contact with DotLW is the only sane strategy from his side . . . so he is not responding.
-As far as I can discern, the named executor in the only copy of a will anyone has seen beside DotLW has thrown in the towel and given the reins over to DotLW. Honestly, everyone is just quietly backing away from the mess with their hands in the air. Other sane sibling is also just saying "whatever, do what you want, but I'm not giving you money" to all demands.
-DotLW has communicated that she is going to obtain the divorce finalization paperwork from the court to negate the named sole inheritor in the will from getting anything. No idea if this is how it works or not, and no idea if DotLW has sought any legal advice.
-DotLW has sent copies of credit card receipts for what she paid for the hastily solo planned over-the-top funeral/burial. Oh, Lordy, I guess it's no surprise that she spread it out over several different credit cards even to the same funeral home. Predictions that she is in financial trouble coming true. She appears to have bought the most expensive plot at the most expensive cemetery in town. Despite the deceased belonging to a large local church for decades, she paid extra to have the service held in the chapel owned by the funeral home instead. And despite having to charge it all on various cards, she is still vowing to spend over $4K additionally for a headstone which she is picking out. According to her texts, she IS doing this and she WILL get her money back and no one better stand in her way! No one else is on board with her plan. Seriously I've purchased cars for less than this theoretical headstone.
-DotLW is whining to extended family that people are not jumping in to pay her back for her ridiculous choices.
-DotLW also sent a copy of her bank statement showing that she is paying the bills of the deceased. These include normal things like utilities on the home and absurd things such as renewing an AARP membership (Um, why?) She is paying these from her personal account, rather than an established estate bank account.
-Although DotLW once said she planned to move into the house left by the deceased, she has reversed course and now says she plans to sell it.
-The deceased had some sort of insurance policy that pays out a very small amount. Mr. Zamboni is the designated beneficiary. Since other accounts listed all three children of the deceased, it's possible that this tiny policy was set up before his siblings were born. So, he is the only one who can claim it. DotLWat already tried to claim it and was told by the insurance company that only Mr. Zamboni can claim it. So, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
ROFL!
He responded that he would be happy to follow up directly with the company, put in the claim himself, and then send each sibling their share of the money if DotLWaT sent her the contact information for the insurance rep. Not surprisingly, she has not responded.
-The deceased had some sort of insurance policy that pays out a very small amount. Mr. Zamboni is the designated beneficiary. Since other accounts listed all three children of the deceased, it's possible that this tiny policy was set up before his siblings were born. So, he is the only one who can claim it. DotLWat already tried to claim it and was told by the insurance company that only Mr. Zamboni can claim it. So, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
ROFL!
He responded that he would be happy to follow up directly with the company, put in the claim himself, and then send each sibling their share of the money if DotLWaT sent her the contact information for the insurance rep. Not surprisingly, she has not responded.
So, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
QuoteSo, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
Insurance benefits are not part of the estate. They belong solely to the beneficiary, in this case the money is your husband's only. Insurance benefits don't go to pay debts from the estate or anything else. If the three siblings are all named on a policy you should get exactly one third of the money in its entirety to the penny with nothing taken out to cover any estate costs.
Go to https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome to help you find out what company has the policy so he can collect his money and not have to deal with his sister at all. That's the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
QuoteSo, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
Insurance benefits are not part of the estate. They belong solely to the beneficiary, in this case the money is your husband's only. Insurance benefits don't go to pay debts from the estate or anything else. If the three siblings are all named on a policy you should get exactly one third of the money in its entirety to the penny with nothing taken out to cover any estate costs.
Go to https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome to help you find out what company has the policy so he can collect his money and not have to deal with his sister at all. That's the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Yes. That's correct. Whatever the policy says. If it's in thirds or if each of you was left a different amount or whatever. But you should get it all as stated, not the estate.QuoteSo, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
Insurance benefits are not part of the estate. They belong solely to the beneficiary, in this case the money is your husband's only. Insurance benefits don't go to pay debts from the estate or anything else. If the three siblings are all named on a policy you should get exactly one third of the money in its entirety to the penny with nothing taken out to cover any estate costs.
Go to https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome to help you find out what company has the policy so he can collect his money and not have to deal with his sister at all. That's the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
I believe that should read: "the amount of the benefit as specified by the policy holder".
Technically true, of course. But I can see that given all the drama about this situation and that the policy was written before the younger siblings were born and never changed, I can well see that the Zambonis might decide that the most politic approach would be an equal split.Yes. That's correct. Whatever the policy says. If it's in thirds or if each of you was left a different amount or whatever. But you should get it all as stated, not the estate.QuoteSo, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
Insurance benefits are not part of the estate. They belong solely to the beneficiary, in this case the money is your husband's only. Insurance benefits don't go to pay debts from the estate or anything else. If the three siblings are all named on a policy you should get exactly one third of the money in its entirety to the penny with nothing taken out to cover any estate costs.
Go to https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome to help you find out what company has the policy so he can collect his money and not have to deal with his sister at all. That's the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
I believe that should read: "the amount of the benefit as specified by the policy holder".
Technically true, of course. But I can see that given all the drama about this situation and that the policy was written before the younger siblings were born and never changed, I can well see that the Zambonis might decide that the most politic approach would be an equal split.Yes. That's correct. Whatever the policy says. If it's in thirds or if each of you was left a different amount or whatever. But you should get it all as stated, not the estate.QuoteSo, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
Insurance benefits are not part of the estate. They belong solely to the beneficiary, in this case the money is your husband's only. Insurance benefits don't go to pay debts from the estate or anything else. If the three siblings are all named on a policy you should get exactly one third of the money in its entirety to the penny with nothing taken out to cover any estate costs.
Go to https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome to help you find out what company has the policy so he can collect his money and not have to deal with his sister at all. That's the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
I believe that should read: "the amount of the benefit as specified by the policy holder".
Go to https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome to help you find out what company has the policy so he can collect his money and not have to deal with his sister at all. That's the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Our family farm saga continues.We have a family-owned farm as well. My mom, aunt and uncle each owned 1/3rd of a farm and my mom and uncle owned 1/2 of another farm. It was all on a handshake deal. Mom and uncle have passed away and we're in the process of getting an agreement in writing before the number of people involved balloons up. Just read the 3rd draft of the agreement this week and it's looking good. Should have the final version in a few weeks and we'll get everything signed.
There was a knock on our door a couple weeks ago, it was a process server. We’re being sued in a partition suit. Oh, joy.
When this is over I can reveal more details, suffice to say that I am in an awkward position because my name is listed as a defendant. Yet, I agree with the plaintive. So I get to spend my own money to defend in court a sentiment I don’t have.
My only salve Is that I have told DH any money defending this thing comes from his own IRA. Our joint monies will not pay for an attorney. Not happening dude.
Our family farm saga continues.
There was a knock on our door a couple weeks ago, it was a process server. We’re being sued in a partition suit. Oh, joy.
When this is over I can reveal more details, suffice to say that I am in an awkward position because my name is listed as a defendant. Yet, I agree with the plaintive. So I get to spend my own money to defend in court a sentiment I don’t have.
My only salve Is that I have told DH any money defending this thing comes from his own IRA. Our joint monies will not pay for an attorney. Not happening dude.
Based on the lawsuits I've defended, I generally wish I'd made more generous settlement offers earlier.
He wants to, that is why we are in this situation to begin with.Our family farm saga continues.
There was a knock on our door a couple weeks ago, it was a process server. We’re being sued in a partition suit. Oh, joy.
When this is over I can reveal more details, suffice to say that I am in an awkward position because my name is listed as a defendant. Yet, I agree with the plaintive. So I get to spend my own money to defend in court a sentiment I don’t have.
My only salve Is that I have told DH any money defending this thing comes from his own IRA. Our joint monies will not pay for an attorney. Not happening dude.
What does DH think? I mean, you don't *have to* defend if he doesn't want to.
Based on the lawsuits I've defended, I generally wish I'd made more generous settlement offers earlier.
Would love to learn more about this.
Based on the lawsuits I've defended, I generally wish I'd made more generous settlement offers earlier.
Would love to learn more about this.
Sold a property when we moved from Ohio to NC. Buyers later claimed we misrepresented the condition of the property (they had hired an inspector, etc.). We ultimately settled for about half of their initial "demand", but there were more than $10,000 in legal fees on top of that because we had let the process drag on well into discovery.
It was just writing checks for us, but we allowed emotions, etc., to ruin seventeen months of our lives.
One of the things that I insisted on was that while I agree we want it to be a family-owned farm and don't want to be in business partners with a soulless corporation, I didn't want the definition of family to be at the whim of a red state legislature. So the agreement recognizes same sex marriages regardless of whether that specific state does, and recognizes common law marriages as well. It also recognizes step children, including step children of a previous marriage, and it also includes foster children as eligible candidates. (Now, the deceased will need to make provisions for some of those folks in their will as we aren't upsetting the normal rules any given state might have for intestate inheritances, but it does mean we'll accept and acknowledge their wishes if they do.) We have some family friends who have adopted a bunch of kids and foster gobs more and I had people like them in mind. Plus, adoption can take FOREVER and these are uncertain times.
What really happened was that they were buying/selling every other year and got caught in the bubble.
I think my folks spent $20,000 defending themselves.
One of the things that I insisted on was that while I agree we want it to be a family-owned farm and don't want to be in business partners with a soulless corporation, I didn't want the definition of family to be at the whim of a red state legislature. So the agreement recognizes same sex marriages regardless of whether that specific state does, and recognizes common law marriages as well. It also recognizes step children, including step children of a previous marriage, and it also includes foster children as eligible candidates. (Now, the deceased will need to make provisions for some of those folks in their will as we aren't upsetting the normal rules any given state might have for intestate inheritances, but it does mean we'll accept and acknowledge their wishes if they do.) We have some family friends who have adopted a bunch of kids and foster gobs more and I had people like them in mind. Plus, adoption can take FOREVER and these are uncertain times.
You're the best! My brother has adopted children. Even though it is a dozen years since the first adoption and he lives only a couple of miles from my Mom, so she sees them regularly, unfortunately she still can't seem to fully embrace them as her grandchildren in a way that is equivalent to her biological grandchildren. It makes me see RED every time she says something that makes me remember that. I don't want to go into very specific details, but her "blood relative" comments to me have gotten really old, and it is getting worse now that she is losing her brain cells and becoming fixated on what's going to happen to her stuff when she dies.
....
We figured out that what DotLWaT! meant when she wrote to him with:
"You have to send me a photocopy of your ID and social security number so I can claim this life insurance for the estate because only the first person listed can submit a claim, and you are listed first"
really probably meant
"You are the primary beneficiary, but I would like to take that money for myself instead."
In that same communication, she also demanded that he write her a check for a portion of the money if he claimed it himself instead. LOLOL.
If he does get anything from this mysterious policy, he is going to split it evenly between the deceased's grandchildren for their college funds. That will be a nice surprise for his nephews, and it will probably be all they ever see from the estate given DotLWaT's machinations.
He laughed at @Sibley 's comment about donating it to an animal shelter . . . I told him the best use of the funds would be hookers and blow, but he has this idea that college funds would honor the deceased better.
Thanks again, @DeniseNJ, for the link to the NAIC link! Mr. Zamboni has started that process.You're very welcome. :)
I mean, she could TRY, but in my experience with life insurance companies (on the company side), there's a good chance she'd get the fraud department involved, which may well get the FBI or other law enforcement involved. Insurance companies are not going to knowingly go along with fraud just because some crackpot got greedy.
I mean, she could TRY, but in my experience with life insurance companies (on the company side), there's a good chance she'd get the fraud department involved, which may well get the FBI or other law enforcement involved. Insurance companies are not going to knowingly go along with fraud just because some crackpot got greedy.
And college funds are a good idea. I like animals more than I like people though, so totally going with the animal shelter.
The police don't charge you to investigate insurance fraud and the public prosecutor doesn't charge you to prosecute either.
The police don't charge you to investigate insurance fraud and the public prosecutor doesn't charge you to prosecute either.
And the next potential victim(s) say thanks for not tolerating criminal behavior. Next time she may defraud someone who really needs the money. But if she is stopped here and now…
So easy to type that of course, but if she already stole years ago it seems incredibly likely it has happened many times since, and undoubtedly will happen in the future.
Sometimes, when someone shows you who they really are, your best move is just to get far away from them.
I appreciate y'all's sense of justice, I really do. But our legal system is just not very well set up to put an end to the behavior of low-level thieves and grifters. I grew up in a very low income neighborhood watching friends and neighbors who engaged in a wide variety of petty property crime and fraud, so I am certain about this.
Sure, maybe the police or DA would investigate "for free," but it would still involve our time and probably cause us more emotional distress. And it would give DotLWaT ammo for her victim narrative to extended family: "I'm getting stuck doing everything and no one is helping me and now they are being greedy and uncooperative and accusatory when I'm just trying to do my job" etc.
Sometimes, when someone shows you who they really are, your best move is just to get far away from them.
It sounds like this is one of those small policies that people forget they even have anyway. If she tried to nick a giant policy, then it would make more sense to pursue justice, but she'd just claim ignorance and go into victim mode. Even then, I still think our legal system wouldn't do anything to her that would change her ways.
Challenge
Okay, Mustachians, if you have young children and don't have life insurance already, Please read onward:
I challenge you to go get some separate term life insurance THIS WEEK for each parent.
That's an unpleasant story. I hope we won't have to deal with anything like that when my MIL passes away. I'm glad you and your sister were able to put it behind you - letting these things fester is just a big waste of time.
What was involved in hiring a lawyer for such a case?
@saguaro Thank you for sharing your story. Sorry you had to deal with an inept and dishonest family member not taking care of things properly!
You inspired me to look up the rules here: in my state the executor is supposed to provide the court with a full listing of assets (bank accounts, property, etc) within 90 days of being appointed. That window has probably passed. We did look and see that the home is now listed as being owned by the heirs of the deceased, so at least some progress is being made.
Then the executor is supposed to provide a full accounting to the court showing that the estate matters are settled within one year from appointment. If they are unable to do that within the first year, then they can petition for an additional year for settlement, but they still have to provide an annual accounting showing where things stand at a year and another final accounting after the second year.
So sorry your sister's accounting had to be pulled out like a rotten tooth. And that the extent of the rot put your youngest sister out onto a ledge. Good job talking her off the ledge!
Zamboni, sorry if you already explained this, but I thought DotLWaT was merely the self-appointed executor, whom the family is allowing to act to save themselves the stress that would ensue from objecting. Or did that extend to DotLWaT getting a formal legal appointment?
Will those rules be enforced, or are the courts too busy under Covid to go after her?
That's an unpleasant story. I hope we won't have to deal with anything like that when my MIL passes away. I'm glad you and your sister were able to put it behind you - letting these things fester is just a big waste of time.
What was involved in hiring a lawyer for such a case?
My youngest sister (henceforth YS for brevity) had contacts from her previous banking job who recommended several attorneys. YS lives in another state, executor sister (ES) and I live in same area as deceased parents. After discussion over a period of months while ES found reasons to keep on dithering (despite my assistance in cleaning out the house and trying to talk her out of all kinds of reasons to keep on dithering) we contacted one attorney. In going over the estate information, the big thing he asked us was what we wanted to accomplish. In this case it was getting ES to move on the house. Possibility of petitioning for ES' removal as executor due to mismanagement was also discussed but that would take time and delay the house sale, thereby incurring more costs both to the estate and legal. Upon review of the will/trust, he found one way to speed things up: there was a provision allowing the primary trustee (ES) to empower a special trustee to handle specific duties. In this case, it would mean ES appointing me to handle the house sale, so that is what attorney recommended in his letter to ES' attorney. To our surprise, ES appointed me, perhaps out of spite, but as time goes on I highly suspect ES' attorney pressured her into it. Reasons were that our attorney pointed out that ES had not provided the required annual accounting to the beneficiaries that was not only laid in the will/trust, he referenced the state statute that also required it.
ES continued as the executor/primary trustee, paying bills such as utilities. I was empowered to list the house, cover any costs associated with selling like maintenance/repairs, negotiate price, handle all listing and closing documents so it was very specific (or as my attorney called "surgical") because one of my concerns was, not knowing what ES was doing, I did not want to be responsible for any of her mismanagement. From the day that ES appointed me to the day I closed on the house sale was all of two months, because I got a buyer 3 days after listing.
It really came down to deciding what specifically we wanted to accomplish, that we had only so much money and time so finding an attorney who would do that. Attorney also had a good penchant for reminding YS not to be too driven in letting emotions / family resentments rule the day and go off in unproductive/expensive directions such as going after bank accounts. But he really did earn his fee when it came to our attention 24 hours before closing that ES had not set up a proper estate account and continued paying bills using Dad's checking account with her name on it. So we had to avoid the sale proceeds going into that account because legally it would be hers. So he had a talk with ES' attorney advising him of that and to arrange for proceeds to be disbursed directly avoiding deposit into the bank account.
ETA: Regarding the covering of costs for selling, any costs were to be charged to the estate but according to attorney if ES refused to pay, then it could be reimbursed via the sale closing document. Luckily I had none other than spending $20 for ice melter.
Wow nicely done. You were able to focus the attorney on the one important item and get it done without winding up in court. I'm learning that it's important to find an attorney who communicates very clearly.
I'm going to guess she did go to the court to be appointed legally so that she had the papers she needed to get at the deceased's bank accounts, and so that she could block the ex-husband, whom she hates, from getting anything. The odds that she never opened a proper estate bank account are extremely high.
Incidentally there were a number of times when she called, or rather commanded me to do something that was outside the scope of the special trustee duties listed on the document that she herself had signed.
Thanks for all these latest posts. An elderly friend alerted me recently that I am the named executor, or personal representative, to his estate.
He originally set up his will so I could assist his surviving spouse in selling all of his tools, boats, and vehicles upon his passing as I have a good understanding of their value, and experience in selling such items.
Unfortunately his wife died first and he has no communication with his adult daughter and step son due to long and ugly family disfunction, so even though she and he will be the beneficiaries of the estate neither will talk to him, at all.
He is concerned they will not respect his wishes regarding the placement of his ashes in a place that is dear to him, as well, and he knows I will.
I have no experience as an executor so this thread has been a good wake up call that I need to educate myself to avoid some of these problems. One thing I don't want is his angry daughter and her family accusing me of any improper behavior.
One thing we've discussed is him pre-signing all of his vehicle and bost titles and storing them with me. He won't have many bills because he is so credit averse: power, water, phone, garbage, car insurance are probably his only bills. With a paid off house he doesn't even have homeowners insurance (!). I know with some family situations the son/daughter is added to the parents checking account but I don't know if that's necessary, or a good idea in this case?
Any advice is appreciated.
How about impending inheritance drama?Yeah there’s a fancy legal word for this inheritance setup but I can’t remember what it is.
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
How about impending inheritance drama?Yeah there’s a fancy legal word for this inheritance setup but I can’t remember what it is.
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
I know someone who was planning to skip his kids and have the grandkids be his heirs. One kid had produced one grandkid and another kid had produced four grandkids. The “unfair” distribution went over like a lead balloon with first kid, even thought it wouldn’t have gone to them in any case. I believe after years of whining by first kid the dad reverted to having the kids being the heirs.
How about impending inheritance drama?Yeah there’s a fancy legal word for this inheritance setup but I can’t remember what it is.
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
I know someone who was planning to skip his kids and have the grandkids be his heirs. One kid had produced one grandkid and another kid had produced four grandkids. The “unfair” distribution went over like a lead balloon with first kid, even thought it wouldn’t have gone to them in any case. I believe after years of whining by first kid the dad reverted to having the kids being the heirs.
I think this is "per stirpes" and it often gets the grand kids all wound up about something being unfair. As if. People really get twisted about what they think is their right to other peoples' stuff, as @Zamboni reminds us with that recent drama.
The scene in "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" where the groups try to decide how to divide up the yet unfound loot is a good example of per stirpes. Is it by CAR or is it by PERSON? Does the RELATIONSHIP in the car matter?
RUN FOR THE MONEY was their solution.
How about impending inheritance drama?Yeah there’s a fancy legal word for this inheritance setup but I can’t remember what it is.
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
I know someone who was planning to skip his kids and have the grandkids be his heirs. One kid had produced one grandkid and another kid had produced four grandkids. The “unfair” distribution went over like a lead balloon with first kid, even thought it wouldn’t have gone to them in any case. I believe after years of whining by first kid the dad reverted to having the kids being the heirs.
I **think this is "per stirpes" and it often gets the grand kids all wound up about something being unfair. As if.** People really get twisted about what they think is their right to other peoples' stuff, as @Zamboni reminds us with that recent drama.
His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children.Once he dies and his two ex-wives inherit, isn't that "it" indistinguishable from the rest of their money? When one of the ex-wives dies, how can you say which of her dollars are "hers" to bequeath as she chooses and which of them are "the ones she inherited" that have to be split among her children?
His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children.Once he dies and his two ex-wives inherit, isn't that "it" indistinguishable from the rest of their money? When one of the ex-wives dies, how can you say which of her dollars are "hers" to bequeath as she chooses and which of them are "the ones she inherited" that have to be split among her children?
Pretty sure that then the kids of the deceased wife would get it unless the will specified otherwise.His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children.Once he dies and his two ex-wives inherit, isn't that "it" indistinguishable from the rest of their money? When one of the ex-wives dies, how can you say which of her dollars are "hers" to bequeath as she chooses and which of them are "the ones she inherited" that have to be split among her children?
Unless one or both of them dies first...
Once he dies and his two ex-wives inherit, isn't that "it"
Challenge
I challenge you to go get some separate term life insurance
His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children.Once he dies and his two ex-wives inherit, isn't that "it" indistinguishable from the rest of their money? When one of the ex-wives dies, how can you say which of her dollars are "hers" to bequeath as she chooses and which of them are "the ones she inherited" that have to be split among her children?
The usual method for dealing with spendthrift widows is to leave them a life interest only - they can spend the interest but not the capital, so the capital gets handed down to the kids. The problem is finding trustees who will do a good job of investing the capital and doling out the interest.His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children.Once he dies and his two ex-wives inherit, isn't that "it" indistinguishable from the rest of their money? When one of the ex-wives dies, how can you say which of her dollars are "hers" to bequeath as she chooses and which of them are "the ones she inherited" that have to be split among her children?
That’s one of the two major reasons I think it’s a terrible plan. Exes could blow it all the kids get nothing. The second is setting up the three older siblings to feel like they got cheated out their ‘fair share’ since ex-DW would almost certainly be getting the bulk of her mother’s estate.
I think he’s actually trying to avoid a fight by handing it to the ex-wives. Instead of the kids squabbling about who needs or deserves it more, he’ll give it to the exes 50/50 and then the kids have no claim to fair and unfair shares since they’re inheriting from their mother, not him. Logically it seems reasonable, but the siblings aren’t Vulcans and human emotions tend to get in the way of that sort of thinking.
I have little faith that plan will leave nobody feeling hurt, and I’m glad I won’t have to be involved.
How about impending inheritance drama?Yeah there’s a fancy legal word for this inheritance setup but I can’t remember what it is.
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
I know someone who was planning to skip his kids and have the grandkids be his heirs. One kid had produced one grandkid and another kid had produced four grandkids. The “unfair” distribution went over like a lead balloon with first kid, even thought it wouldn’t have gone to them in any case. I believe after years of whining by first kid the dad reverted to having the kids being the heirs.
I think this is "per stirpes" and it often gets the grand kids all wound up about something being unfair. As if. People really get twisted about what they think is their right to other peoples' stuff, as @Zamboni reminds us with that recent drama.
The scene in "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" where the groups try to decide how to divide up the yet unfound loot is a good example of per stirpes. Is it by CAR or is it by PERSON? Does the RELATIONSHIP in the car matter?
RUN FOR THE MONEY was their solution.
How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I'm with you. It really should be left to his children equally. Not to the ex-wives. Also, not to grandchildren but to the children themselves. If a child/heir has 1 child or ten it should not make a difference, that's their choice. Just like if the parent/deceased had one kid they would get it all but if the parent/deceased had ten kids, then the "fortune" gets divided by ten. Maybe it sucks to be one of ten when money is concerned but that's a choice parents make. Under ordinary circumstances, leave everything equally to your kids. Or better yet, blow it all! ;)How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I get it though. $2 million v. $3.5 million is a large difference. Considering they are both divorced wives, with no current spouse, it does seem odd to split by ex wives instead of children. And then it starts getting into all of the emotional issues - does this mean I'm loved less, did dad not care enough about me to think this through, etc.
I'm with you. It really should be left to his children equally. Not to the ex-wives. Also, not to grandchildren but to the children themselves. If a child/heir has 1 child or ten it should not make a difference, that's their choice. Just like if the parent/deceased had one kid they would get it all but if the parent/deceased had ten kids, then the "fortune" gets divided by ten. Maybe it sucks to be one of ten when money is concerned but that's a choice parents make. Under ordinary circumstances, leave everything equally to your kids. Or better yet, blow it all! ;)How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I get it though. $2 million v. $3.5 million is a large difference. Considering they are both divorced wives, with no current spouse, it does seem odd to split by ex wives instead of children. And then it starts getting into all of the emotional issues - does this mean I'm loved less, did dad not care enough about me to think this through, etc.
I'm with you. It really should be left to his children equally. Not to the ex-wives. Also, not to grandchildren but to the children themselves. If a child/heir has 1 child or ten it should not make a difference, that's their choice. Just like if the parent/deceased had one kid they would get it all but if the parent/deceased had ten kids, then the "fortune" gets divided by ten. Maybe it sucks to be one of ten when money is concerned but that's a choice parents make. Under ordinary circumstances, leave everything equally to your kids. Or better yet, blow it all! ;)How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I get it though. $2 million v. $3.5 million is a large difference. Considering they are both divorced wives, with no current spouse, it does seem odd to split by ex wives instead of children. And then it starts getting into all of the emotional issues - does this mean I'm loved less, did dad not care enough about me to think this through, etc.
Yep. To be clear, it's not their money, and fully the dad's choice as to how to distribute, if at all. BUT that said, I think it's ripe for issues and I 100% get why people might feel hurt, even if they each had $10 million in the bank.
I'm with you. It really should be left to his children equally. Not to the ex-wives. Also, not to grandchildren but to the children themselves. If a child/heir has 1 child or ten it should not make a difference, that's their choice. Just like if the parent/deceased had one kid they would get it all but if the parent/deceased had ten kids, then the "fortune" gets divided by ten. Maybe it sucks to be one of ten when money is concerned but that's a choice parents make. Under ordinary circumstances, leave everything equally to your kids. Or better yet, blow it all! ;)How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I get it though. $2 million v. $3.5 million is a large difference. Considering they are both divorced wives, with no current spouse, it does seem odd to split by ex wives instead of children. And then it starts getting into all of the emotional issues - does this mean I'm loved less, did dad not care enough about me to think this through, etc.
Yep. To be clear, it's not their money, and fully the dad's choice as to how to distribute, if at all. BUT that said, I think it's ripe for issues and I 100% get why people might feel hurt, even if they each had $10 million in the bank.
I'm with you. It really should be left to his children equally. Not to the ex-wives. Also, not to grandchildren but to the children themselves. If a child/heir has 1 child or ten it should not make a difference, that's their choice. Just like if the parent/deceased had one kid they would get it all but if the parent/deceased had ten kids, then the "fortune" gets divided by ten. Maybe it sucks to be one of ten when money is concerned but that's a choice parents make. Under ordinary circumstances, leave everything equally to your kids. Or better yet, blow it all! ;)How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I get it though. $2 million v. $3.5 million is a large difference. Considering they are both divorced wives, with no current spouse, it does seem odd to split by ex wives instead of children. And then it starts getting into all of the emotional issues - does this mean I'm loved less, did dad not care enough about me to think this through, etc.
I'm with you. It really should be left to his children equally. Not to the ex-wives. Also, not to grandchildren but to the children themselves. If a child/heir has 1 child or ten it should not make a difference, that's their choice. Just like if the parent/deceased had one kid they would get it all but if the parent/deceased had ten kids, then the "fortune" gets divided by ten. Maybe it sucks to be one of ten when money is concerned but that's a choice parents make. Under ordinary circumstances, leave everything equally to your kids. Or better yet, blow it all! ;)How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I get it though. $2 million v. $3.5 million is a large difference. Considering they are both divorced wives, with no current spouse, it does seem odd to split by ex wives instead of children. And then it starts getting into all of the emotional issues - does this mean I'm loved less, did dad not care enough about me to think this through, etc.
Y'all are neglecting the fact that the ex-wives both probably need this money to live out their days. Perhaps they were both homemakers? And why should he leave anything to his children at all? How his fortune is split between his wives is a stupid thing for his kids to worry over . . . instead they should be happy that he had money to leave, and so their Moms are not destitute.
If the children came from two relationships, there may be the kind of age difference that means the older children are significantly better off than the younger.
Of course, that difference may be an illusion of their age. $2 million probably changes the life of a 20-year old much more than it changes the life of a 35-year-old.
$2mil drastically increase the amount of hookers and blow in my life :-)
And the amount you can waste, too!
I had times in my thirties where I thought a couple mill might actually be enough to pay for all the childcare I wanted to hire. :-)oh, yeah...
I think that of all the choices in this case the most "fair" is to split everything equal among the children. I don't know the dynamics of this particular case, but children from first marriages often feel replaced by children from subsequent ones. This is not going to help this at all.
I also think about guys like Rupert Murdoch, whose older sons become essentially business partners, while his third wives have to pull together an All-Star legal team just to make sure the newest kids get some coin.
Thanks again, @DeniseNJ, for the link to the NAIC link! Mr. Zamboni has started that process.
We figured out that what DotLWaT! meant when she wrote to him with:
"You have to send me a photocopy of your ID and social security number so I can claim this life insurance for the estate because only the first person listed can submit a claim, and you are listed first"
really probably meant
"You are the primary beneficiary, but I would like to take that money for myself instead."
In that same communication, she also demanded that he write her a check for a portion of the money if he claimed it himself instead. LOLOL.
If he does get anything from this mysterious policy, he is going to split it evenly between the deceased's grandchildren for their college funds. That will be a nice surprise for his nephews, and it will probably be all they ever see from the estate given DotLWaT's machinations.
He laughed at @Sibley 's comment about donating it to an animal shelter . . . I told him the best use of the funds would be hookers and blow, but he has this idea that college funds would honor the deceased better.
Yeah, he knows what he is going to do with the money, but for now mum is the word. He doesn't want to interact with DotLWaT at all . . . he felt this way when I met him, but for many years I encouraged him to play nice (bc she's family, etc.) At this point, even my kind heart has given up on that relationship.
Once the estate is completely settled, with the house sold and probate all completed, then he'll send checks to the deceased's grandsons. It's a decent chunk of money, so it will help them with college or whatever they need to start their adult lives, but for us it is an irrelevant amount in the grand scheme of things.
Yeah, he knows what he is going to do with the money, but for now mum is the word. He doesn't want to interact with DotLWaT at all . . . he felt this way when I met him, but for many years I encouraged him to play nice (bc she's family, etc.) At this point, even my kind heart has given up on that relationship.
Once the estate is completely settled, with the house sold and probate all completed, then he'll send checks to the deceased's grandsons. It's a decent chunk of money, so it will help them with college or whatever they need to start their adult lives, but for us it is an irrelevant amount in the grand scheme of things.
Zamboni, I'm sorry, but that one sentence makes me curse you. I HATE it when an outsider comes into the family and assumes that everyone should play by their rules without considering that maybe, just maybe, there's a damn good reason why certain dynamics exist. Who are you, or anyone, to dictate that someone interact with anyone "because family". In this case it sounds like it wasn't as bad as it could be - but that isn't always the case.
Yeah, he knows what he is going to do with the money, but for now mum is the word. He doesn't want to interact with DotLWaT at all . . . he felt this way when I met him, but for many years I encouraged him to play nice (bc she's family, etc.) At this point, even my kind heart has given up on that relationship.
Once the estate is completely settled, with the house sold and probate all completed, then he'll send checks to the deceased's grandsons. It's a decent chunk of money, so it will help them with college or whatever they need to start their adult lives, but for us it is an irrelevant amount in the grand scheme of things.
Zamboni, I'm sorry, but that one sentence makes me curse you. I HATE it when an outsider comes into the family and assumes that everyone should play by their rules without considering that maybe, just maybe, there's a damn good reason why certain dynamics exist. Who are you, or anyone, to dictate that someone interact with anyone "because family". In this case it sounds like it wasn't as bad as it could be - but that isn't always the case.
Hmm, I know it’s all relative (hah!), but I wouldn’t equate “encourage” with “dictate”. I think it’s quite normal for a couple to discuss these kinds of things and look to each other for advice and thoughts. Interactions with the wider family affect both partners in a couple, so it only makes sense to decide such things as a unit. That doesn’t mean one person is dictating anything.
Yeah, he knows what he is going to do with the money, but for now mum is the word. He doesn't want to interact with DotLWaT at all . . . he felt this way when I met him, but for many years I encouraged him to play nice (bc she's family, etc.) At this point, even my kind heart has given up on that relationship.
Once the estate is completely settled, with the house sold and probate all completed, then he'll send checks to the deceased's grandsons. It's a decent chunk of money, so it will help them with college or whatever they need to start their adult lives, but for us it is an irrelevant amount in the grand scheme of things.
Zamboni, I'm sorry, but that one sentence makes me curse you. I HATE it when an outsider comes into the family and assumes that everyone should play by their rules without considering that maybe, just maybe, there's a damn good reason why certain dynamics exist. Who are you, or anyone, to dictate that someone interact with anyone "because family". In this case it sounds like it wasn't as bad as it could be - but that isn't always the case.
Zamboni, that's good. You're in the clear. Clearly, bit of a button for me, and my extended family isn't even bad!I hear you. When I first met DH he was semi-estranged from his parents and I thought it was just a consequence of youthful immaturity opposite emotionally unintelligence boomers. I know better now. It was just that within my experience *at the time* I couldn’t conceive of parents being as malignant or truly disturbed. It’s been a learning journey for us separately and together as a couple.
As for everyone else - great you don't see an issue, but be careful. Because you don't know what happens behind closed doors and plenty of abusers are fully capable of putting on a nice face.
Funny thing about that article is the poster is under the impression there will be assets to inherit. The joke could be on them if mom dies and has no assets to speak of, yet the child is left to clear out the house, close out finances, etc.
Yes, absolutely. However, if there are no assets to speak of, it sure wouldn’t be fun to pay out of pocket for someone else to do it for a parent you haven’t communicated with in 20 years. I guess at that point the person could just leave it to others to handle if they didn’t want to deal with it.
I understood perfectly and even mentioned the person could just walk away and leave it to others. We’re on the same page.You're absolutely right. I misread.
DotLWaT
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/we-re-headed-for-a-family-feud-my-father-offered-his-3-kids-equal-monetary-gifts-my-siblings-took-cash-i-took-stock-it-s-soared-in-value-now-they-re-crying-foul/ar-AAVHck1?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=849b5047f55e46ab956323ad5c89eaf9
An entitlement "Do Over" request. Not only would I not budge, but I would openly laugh at my brothers who whined about this.
My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died. After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity. We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name. He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates). This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before. He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.
Enter SIL. We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes. While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/we-re-headed-for-a-family-feud-my-father-offered-his-3-kids-equal-monetary-gifts-my-siblings-took-cash-i-took-stock-it-s-soared-in-value-now-they-re-crying-foul/ar-AAVHck1?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=849b5047f55e46ab956323ad5c89eaf9
An entitlement "Do Over" request. Not only would I not budge, but I would openly laugh at my brothers who whined about this.
Good grief, I can't stand that attitude. Those who don't invest somehow think of investment gains like lottery money instead of capital-at-risk.
I'm dealing with a sorta-similar attitude in my family, although it's not an inheritance issue yet.
My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died. After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity. We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name. He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates). This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before. He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.
Enter SIL. We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes. While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.
I've also heard the IRS does not like when people rent to family members for below-market rates. When you take @Villanelle's excellent advice, be sure to run that past the professional, too.Wouldn't it count as a gift, though? As long as it's below the limits for a gift?
The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?
My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died. After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity. We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name. He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates). This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before. He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.
Enter SIL. We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes. While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.
Wow. I would suggest you tell her to cough up her own cash for a down payment, buy a different house for your dad and convince him to move into it. She can undertake the all the risk to that money if your dad doesn't keep the house up or the market is way down when it comes time to sell or rent the house. You'll then gladly sell the house you bought with your own money or rent it to strangers for way more cash per month. Otherwise, STFU.
Jeesh, but I just have zero patience with people like this.
My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died. After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity. We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name. He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates). This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before. He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.
Enter SIL. We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes. While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.
Wow. I would suggest you tell her to cough up her own cash for a down payment, buy a different house for your dad and convince him to move into it. She can undertake the all the risk to that money if your dad doesn't keep the house up or the market is way down when it comes time to sell or rent the house. You'll then gladly sell the house you bought with your own money or rent it to strangers for way more cash per month. Otherwise, STFU.
Jeesh, but I just have zero patience with people like this.
Even better, we had asked SIL to contribute to the house or moving expenses when he was moving. She refused at the time, as she claimed to not have the money at the time.
With the benefit of hindsight, I am incredibly grateful she said no, as I’d hate to be in any type of business relationship with her.
bib is the perfect answer to any future griping from SIL about wanting a cut.
My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died. After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity. We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name. He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates). This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before. He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.
Enter SIL. We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes. While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.
Wow. I would suggest you tell her to cough up her own cash for a down payment, buy a different house for your dad and convince him to move into it. She can undertake the all the risk to that money if your dad doesn't keep the house up or the market is way down when it comes time to sell or rent the house. You'll then gladly sell the house you bought with your own money or rent it to strangers for way more cash per month. Otherwise, STFU.
Jeesh, but I just have zero patience with people like this.
Even better, we had asked SIL to contribute to the house or moving expenses when he was moving. She refused at the time, as she claimed to not have the money at the time.
With the benefit of hindsight, I am incredibly grateful she said no, as I’d hate to be in any type of business relationship with her.
Sweet!
I don't blame you at all!
@former player, what the heck is bib?bit in bold
Oh, that's such a responsible definition of bib.
I was guessing "bring it, bitch." So then I thought, no, former player would never be so crass, we must search urban dictionary!
Which led to:
Bib
A coward. Someone who won't take risks. They have no nuts and their scrotum is nothing but a bib for their penis.
OMG, I loooove learning!
@former player, what the heck is bib?bit in bold
The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?
So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.
I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes. Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved. The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.
The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?
So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.
I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes. Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved. The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.
Yeah, the last bit -- we bought a house for my BIL to live in, and he pays rent sometimes, when he can. (To be clear, we're fine with that: the goal was to get him safely housed.) At the advice of our tax professional, we don't treat it as a rental property, as what he's paying is pretty far below market rates.
The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?
So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.
I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes. Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved. The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.
Yeah, the last bit -- we bought a house for my BIL to live in, and he pays rent sometimes, when he can. (To be clear, we're fine with that: the goal was to get him safely housed.) At the advice of our tax professional, we don't treat it as a rental property, as what he's paying is pretty far below market rates.
This is quite interesting to me, no experience with it. Got a couple inquiries.
So the money he is able to pay is basically just like a gift?
How does insurance work? If he has renter’s insurance (doesn’t seem likely with what you posted, but assume anyway) and you have normal homeowners, is there a potential for a problem if something happens?
Thanks.
The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?
So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.
I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes. Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved. The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.
Yeah, the last bit -- we bought a house for my BIL to live in, and he pays rent sometimes, when he can. (To be clear, we're fine with that: the goal was to get him safely housed.) At the advice of our tax professional, we don't treat it as a rental property, as what he's paying is pretty far below market rates.
This is quite interesting to me, no experience with it. Got a couple inquiries.
So the money he is able to pay is basically just like a gift?
How does insurance work? If he has renter’s insurance (doesn’t seem likely with what you posted, but assume anyway) and you have normal homeowners, is there a potential for a problem if something happens?
Thanks.
The way to think about it is a categorization issue. This type of property will be categorized differently depending on who’s looking at it. An insurance company will think of it like a rental property and insure it as such. The IRS will say “it’s not a business” (which is what they really care about). I don’t even recall how the mortgage broker classified it, but I seem to remember they were looking into categorizing it as a primary residence, since my FIL was involved in the purchase decision.
^Not a tax professional here, but I can't imagine why you would claim it as income if a family member is paying part of a mortgage on a home you own. Especially if you are letting them stay in your house for below market value, on paper it would likely come out as a net loss if it was treated as rental income (remember there are things like depreciation on appliances, maintenance costs, etc. that landlords can write off as deductions.)
^Not a tax professional here, but I can't imagine why you would claim it as income if a family member is paying part of a mortgage on a home you own. Especially if you are letting them stay in your house for below market value, on paper it would likely come out as a net loss if it was treated as rental income (remember there are things like depreciation on appliances, maintenance costs, etc. that landlords can write off as deductions.)
If it's treated as a business, the IRS will tax them on what they SHOULD HAVE charged for rent instead of what they actually are charging for rent. And that's fair because if they are renting it out at well below market value, it's a family charity thing instead of a business, i.e., it would be a sham business if they treated it as one.
Only a tax accountant could tell them which option would be better dollar-wise.
I guess it's not "drama" if we don't make it into some, though!
Somewhat odd that he didn't have a will. I wonder if that was kind of "never got around to it" or if it was because he considered himself to own nothing.
That does seem to tip the balance toward the Church. Hard to judge for sure without getting validated evidence, witnesses, etc.
Anyway, it was interesting looking into how complex the question of a vow of poverty can be.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
How does the government know that it is theirs to deal with if you haven't dealt with it to the extent of telling them? And if you've done that much what's the excuse for not dealing with the whole issue?If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
I'm not sure where this perspective is coming from. Worst case you would be ceding the house, land, and everything in it to the government (right?) How is this throwing a tantrum or screwing over society?
How does the government know that it is theirs to deal with if you haven't dealt with it to the extent of telling them? And if you've done that much what's the excuse for not dealing with the whole issue?If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
I'm not sure where this perspective is coming from. Worst case you would be ceding the house, land, and everything in it to the government (right?) How is this throwing a tantrum or screwing over society?
How does the government know that it is theirs to deal with if you haven't dealt with it to the extent of telling them? And if you've done that much what's the excuse for not dealing with the whole issue?If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
I'm not sure where this perspective is coming from. Worst case you would be ceding the house, land, and everything in it to the government (right?) How is this throwing a tantrum or screwing over society?
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I guess because I am nosy and pay attention to real estate in various places where I live, I see houses that are vacant for decades. I am not exaggerating. In my old neighborhood we called them “problem properties “ and we zeroed in on absentee owners, usually children of the deceased, who for some reason could not get off their duff and sell the thing.
So now I’ve watched two real estate booms come and go where some of these buildings STILL sit vacant. Who are these dummies who own these things? I just don’t get it. Because my old neighborhood is a historic preservation District, we are very concerned about the buildings being vacant, water getting in, structure going downhill.
There’s one on my Block in my new town, but it is a cute tidy brick house that is kept mowed so no one is bothered by it. The heirs cannot agree what to do with it. That seems very stupid to me but whatever.
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I think rejecting an inheritance can be a good option for some people under some circumstances, but I feel people here make it sound a little more easy than it is. Or maybe the laws are different where you guys all live?
Here, rejecting an inheritance means not being able to organize the funeral (if you organize the funeral you are legally accepting you are an heir). It means stepping away from all the posessions of your loved one. That includes childhood pictures and their dog. A few years ago one of our neighbours died. He was a lifelong bachelor, not a friendly guy at all, apparantly in debt as well. His distant relatives decided to reject the inheritance. Which is understandable, since he wasn't nice, he rented and had debts. I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nasty uncle's mess either. But in that case, the local goverment handles everything. In practice that meant the local government picked up his body from the hospital, had him cremated without any kind of ceremony and sent guys who carried all his possessions into a dumpster in about an hour. He didn't have pets but they would have been surrendered to a shelter. It's a pretty big thing to do. I have an unfriendly bachelor uncle as well. I'm not sure if I would reject that inheritance, it would depend on the amount of debts. But I still feel like I owe him at least a decent funeral, and I'd like to get back a few family heirlooms.
Of course, in many cases, if one person rejects an inheritance there will be people next in line. You may still be able to attend a funeral as a guest while someone else is legally liable for it. But you will be dependant on the kindness of the other heirs to ever get your baby pictures back.
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I guess because I am nosy and pay attention to real estate in various places where I live, I see houses that are vacant for decades. I am not exaggerating. In my old neighborhood we called them “problem properties “ and we zeroed in on absentee owners, usually children of the deceased, who for some reason could not get off their duff and sell the thing.
So now I’ve watched two real estate booms come and go where some of these buildings STILL sit vacant. Who are these dummies who own these things? I just don’t get it. Because my old neighborhood is a historic preservation District, we are very concerned about the buildings being vacant, water getting in, structure going downhill.
There’s one on my Block in my new town, but it is a cute tidy brick house that is kept mowed so no one is bothered by it. The heirs cannot agree what to do with it. That seems very stupid to me but whatever.
We have a similar neighborhood in my area. The problem seems to be that this used to be a lower income part of town. If you're familiar with the concept of a mill village then you kind of understand. Some residents are fifth or sixth generation on the same street. And some are people who've moved in from out of state and have no concept of what the neighborhood was like before the mill closed down. So, you've got an interesting mix of people who are gentrifying the neighborhood (got it put on the national historical register), people who are doing their best to hold on to their great-great-great-grandparents' house, and houses that are sitting empty because there might be a dozen heirs and none of them can agree on what to do. The way it usually goes down is that the ones who want to live there can't afford to buy out their cousins, the ones who can afford it don't want to live there, the ones who want nothing to do with the family don't respond to anything, and meanwhile the house sits empty and rots.
In one local case, a local woman passed her house to her five grandchildren. The house was in a horrible location for a residence, but the block had been rezoned to commercial some years back. Four of the five grandchildren had gotten a great offer on it, and the fifth held it up because she was opposed to her grandmother's house becoming a liquor store. They went to court over it. The four who wanted to sell "won," but I suspect that there were no winners in the end.
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I think rejecting an inheritance can be a good option for some people under some circumstances, but I feel people here make it sound a little more easy than it is. Or maybe the laws are different where you guys all live?
Here, rejecting an inheritance means not being able to organize the funeral (if you organize the funeral you are legally accepting you are an heir). It means stepping away from all the posessions of your loved one. That includes childhood pictures and their dog. A few years ago one of our neighbours died. He was a lifelong bachelor, not a friendly guy at all, apparantly in debt as well. His distant relatives decided to reject the inheritance. Which is understandable, since he wasn't nice, he rented and had debts. I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nasty uncle's mess either. But in that case, the local goverment handles everything. In practice that meant the local government picked up his body from the hospital, had him cremated without any kind of ceremony and sent guys who carried all his possessions into a dumpster in about an hour. He didn't have pets but they would have been surrendered to a shelter. It's a pretty big thing to do. I have an unfriendly bachelor uncle as well. I'm not sure if I would reject that inheritance, it would depend on the amount of debts. But I still feel like I owe him at least a decent funeral, and I'd like to get back a few family heirlooms.
Of course, in many cases, if one person rejects an inheritance there will be people next in line. You may still be able to attend a funeral as a guest while someone else is legally liable for it. But you will be dependant on the kindness of the other heirs to ever get your baby pictures back.
So, where I live, I can actually pick and choose which parts of an inheritance I want to take. For example, I can (and will) simply refuse my parents' timeshares. As long as I don't use them after my parents pass, they can't force me to take responsibility for them. That doesn't disqualify me from receiving anything else (though I'm not expecting anything from them). Debt is almost never inherited, thankfully. The few cases I can think of where debt could be passed down would be secured debt like a mortgage or if the descendants co-signed on something.
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I think rejecting an inheritance can be a good option for some people under some circumstances, but I feel people here make it sound a little more easy than it is. Or maybe the laws are different where you guys all live?
Here, rejecting an inheritance means not being able to organize the funeral (if you organize the funeral you are legally accepting you are an heir). It means stepping away from all the posessions of your loved one. That includes childhood pictures and their dog. A few years ago one of our neighbours died. He was a lifelong bachelor, not a friendly guy at all, apparantly in debt as well. His distant relatives decided to reject the inheritance. Which is understandable, since he wasn't nice, he rented and had debts. I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nasty uncle's mess either. But in that case, the local goverment handles everything. In practice that meant the local government picked up his body from the hospital, had him cremated without any kind of ceremony and sent guys who carried all his possessions into a dumpster in about an hour. He didn't have pets but they would have been surrendered to a shelter. It's a pretty big thing to do. I have an unfriendly bachelor uncle as well. I'm not sure if I would reject that inheritance, it would depend on the amount of debts. But I still feel like I owe him at least a decent funeral, and I'd like to get back a few family heirlooms.
Of course, in many cases, if one person rejects an inheritance there will be people next in line. You may still be able to attend a funeral as a guest while someone else is legally liable for it. But you will be dependant on the kindness of the other heirs to ever get your baby pictures back.
So, where I live, I can actually pick and choose which parts of an inheritance I want to take. For example, I can (and will) simply refuse my parents' timeshares. As long as I don't use them after my parents pass, they can't force me to take responsibility for them. That doesn't disqualify me from receiving anything else (though I'm not expecting anything from them). Debt is almost never inherited, thankfully. The few cases I can think of where debt could be passed down would be secured debt like a mortgage or if the descendants co-signed on something.
Oh, that sounds ideal! I imagine few people would want to accept a timeshare, but you'd still be able to pick the things you'd want.
Here you get three options:
- refuse outright. You need to register this with the local court, it's not expensive, but it means you get literally nothing. Inheritance will go to the person next in line until there's no one left and then it's the local government's problem.
- accept on the condition the inheritance is a net-positive. You also need to register this with the court. You settle the estate (figure out the debts of the estate, find where the money is, sell the valuables) if the result is positive it's for you, if the result is negative, it's divided among the creditors. In this situation you are allowed to sell the jewelry to benefit the estate but you can't take your parents wedding ring for yourself until everything is settled and you've accepted the result.
- accept the inheritance, whatever the outcome. If you take anything for yourself before the estate is settled, you "act as an heir" and you're automatically stuck with it regardless of the result.
Many people choose to accept the inheritance because they're so attached to family heirlooms and other material things. In my family we've always been open about money so I hope that should one of my parents die in debt, they'd give me the photo albums and wedding rings before their death.
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I think rejecting an inheritance can be a good option for some people under some circumstances, but I feel people here make it sound a little more easy than it is. Or maybe the laws are different where you guys all live?
Here, rejecting an inheritance means not being able to organize the funeral (if you organize the funeral you are legally accepting you are an heir). It means stepping away from all the posessions of your loved one. That includes childhood pictures and their dog. A few years ago one of our neighbours died. He was a lifelong bachelor, not a friendly guy at all, apparantly in debt as well. His distant relatives decided to reject the inheritance. Which is understandable, since he wasn't nice, he rented and had debts. I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nasty uncle's mess either. But in that case, the local goverment handles everything. In practice that meant the local government picked up his body from the hospital, had him cremated without any kind of ceremony and sent guys who carried all his possessions into a dumpster in about an hour. He didn't have pets but they would have been surrendered to a shelter. It's a pretty big thing to do. I have an unfriendly bachelor uncle as well. I'm not sure if I would reject that inheritance, it would depend on the amount of debts. But I still feel like I owe him at least a decent funeral, and I'd like to get back a few family heirlooms.
Of course, in many cases, if one person rejects an inheritance there will be people next in line. You may still be able to attend a funeral as a guest while someone else is legally liable for it. But you will be dependant on the kindness of the other heirs to ever get your baby pictures back.
So, where I live, I can actually pick and choose which parts of an inheritance I want to take. For example, I can (and will) simply refuse my parents' timeshares. As long as I don't use them after my parents pass, they can't force me to take responsibility for them. That doesn't disqualify me from receiving anything else (though I'm not expecting anything from them). Debt is almost never inherited, thankfully. The few cases I can think of where debt could be passed down would be secured debt like a mortgage or if the descendants co-signed on something.
Oh, that sounds ideal! I imagine few people would want to accept a timeshare, but you'd still be able to pick the things you'd want.
Here you get three options:
- refuse outright. You need to register this with the local court, it's not expensive, but it means you get literally nothing. Inheritance will go to the person next in line until there's no one left and then it's the local government's problem.
- accept on the condition the inheritance is a net-positive. You also need to register this with the court. You settle the estate (figure out the debts of the estate, find where the money is, sell the valuables) if the result is positive it's for you, if the result is negative, it's divided among the creditors. In this situation you are allowed to sell the jewelry to benefit the estate but you can't take your parents wedding ring for yourself until everything is settled and you've accepted the result.
- accept the inheritance, whatever the outcome. If you take anything for yourself before the estate is settled, you "act as an heir" and you're automatically stuck with it regardless of the result.
Many people choose to accept the inheritance because they're so attached to family heirlooms and other material things. In my family we've always been open about money so I hope that should one of my parents die in debt, they'd give me the photo albums and wedding rings before their death.
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I think rejecting an inheritance can be a good option for some people under some circumstances, but I feel people here make it sound a little more easy than it is. Or maybe the laws are different where you guys all live?
Here, rejecting an inheritance means not being able to organize the funeral (if you organize the funeral you are legally accepting you are an heir). It means stepping away from all the posessions of your loved one. That includes childhood pictures and their dog. A few years ago one of our neighbours died. He was a lifelong bachelor, not a friendly guy at all, apparantly in debt as well. His distant relatives decided to reject the inheritance. Which is understandable, since he wasn't nice, he rented and had debts. I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nasty uncle's mess either. But in that case, the local goverment handles everything. In practice that meant the local government picked up his body from the hospital, had him cremated without any kind of ceremony and sent guys who carried all his possessions into a dumpster in about an hour. He didn't have pets but they would have been surrendered to a shelter. It's a pretty big thing to do. I have an unfriendly bachelor uncle as well. I'm not sure if I would reject that inheritance, it would depend on the amount of debts. But I still feel like I owe him at least a decent funeral, and I'd like to get back a few family heirlooms.
Of course, in many cases, if one person rejects an inheritance there will be people next in line. You may still be able to attend a funeral as a guest while someone else is legally liable for it. But you will be dependant on the kindness of the other heirs to ever get your baby pictures back.
So, where I live, I can actually pick and choose which parts of an inheritance I want to take. For example, I can (and will) simply refuse my parents' timeshares. As long as I don't use them after my parents pass, they can't force me to take responsibility for them. That doesn't disqualify me from receiving anything else (though I'm not expecting anything from them). Debt is almost never inherited, thankfully. The few cases I can think of where debt could be passed down would be secured debt like a mortgage or if the descendants co-signed on something.
Oh, that sounds ideal! I imagine few people would want to accept a timeshare, but you'd still be able to pick the things you'd want.
Here you get three options:
- refuse outright. You need to register this with the local court, it's not expensive, but it means you get literally nothing. Inheritance will go to the person next in line until there's no one left and then it's the local government's problem.
- accept on the condition the inheritance is a net-positive. You also need to register this with the court. You settle the estate (figure out the debts of the estate, find where the money is, sell the valuables) if the result is positive it's for you, if the result is negative, it's divided among the creditors. In this situation you are allowed to sell the jewelry to benefit the estate but you can't take your parents wedding ring for yourself until everything is settled and you've accepted the result.
- accept the inheritance, whatever the outcome. If you take anything for yourself before the estate is settled, you "act as an heir" and you're automatically stuck with it regardless of the result.
Many people choose to accept the inheritance because they're so attached to family heirlooms and other material things. In my family we've always been open about money so I hope that should one of my parents die in debt, they'd give me the photo albums and wedding rings before their death.
A question:
If the estate has a negative net worth, does this mean the beneficiary has liability? I think there's a rule like this in Quebec, but it may be the executor who's liable rather than the beneficiary. (I don't live in Quebec.)
In the UK the debts have to be paid out of the assets. If the debts take up all the assets no-one inherits anything, it is all sold to pay the debts. But if there is not enough in the estate to pay all the debts then some of them go unpaid, and in that case there are rules as to the order in which the debts are paid from the assets of the estate. No-one can inherit a debt as such, but if for instance someone had been left a house that was subject to a mortgage they could agree to pay off the mortgage in order to inherit the house rather than the house being sold to pay off the mortgage.I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I think rejecting an inheritance can be a good option for some people under some circumstances, but I feel people here make it sound a little more easy than it is. Or maybe the laws are different where you guys all live?
Here, rejecting an inheritance means not being able to organize the funeral (if you organize the funeral you are legally accepting you are an heir). It means stepping away from all the posessions of your loved one. That includes childhood pictures and their dog. A few years ago one of our neighbours died. He was a lifelong bachelor, not a friendly guy at all, apparantly in debt as well. His distant relatives decided to reject the inheritance. Which is understandable, since he wasn't nice, he rented and had debts. I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nasty uncle's mess either. But in that case, the local goverment handles everything. In practice that meant the local government picked up his body from the hospital, had him cremated without any kind of ceremony and sent guys who carried all his possessions into a dumpster in about an hour. He didn't have pets but they would have been surrendered to a shelter. It's a pretty big thing to do. I have an unfriendly bachelor uncle as well. I'm not sure if I would reject that inheritance, it would depend on the amount of debts. But I still feel like I owe him at least a decent funeral, and I'd like to get back a few family heirlooms.
Of course, in many cases, if one person rejects an inheritance there will be people next in line. You may still be able to attend a funeral as a guest while someone else is legally liable for it. But you will be dependant on the kindness of the other heirs to ever get your baby pictures back.
So, where I live, I can actually pick and choose which parts of an inheritance I want to take. For example, I can (and will) simply refuse my parents' timeshares. As long as I don't use them after my parents pass, they can't force me to take responsibility for them. That doesn't disqualify me from receiving anything else (though I'm not expecting anything from them). Debt is almost never inherited, thankfully. The few cases I can think of where debt could be passed down would be secured debt like a mortgage or if the descendants co-signed on something.
Oh, that sounds ideal! I imagine few people would want to accept a timeshare, but you'd still be able to pick the things you'd want.
Here you get three options:
- refuse outright. You need to register this with the local court, it's not expensive, but it means you get literally nothing. Inheritance will go to the person next in line until there's no one left and then it's the local government's problem.
- accept on the condition the inheritance is a net-positive. You also need to register this with the court. You settle the estate (figure out the debts of the estate, find where the money is, sell the valuables) if the result is positive it's for you, if the result is negative, it's divided among the creditors. In this situation you are allowed to sell the jewelry to benefit the estate but you can't take your parents wedding ring for yourself until everything is settled and you've accepted the result.
- accept the inheritance, whatever the outcome. If you take anything for yourself before the estate is settled, you "act as an heir" and you're automatically stuck with it regardless of the result.
Many people choose to accept the inheritance because they're so attached to family heirlooms and other material things. In my family we've always been open about money so I hope that should one of my parents die in debt, they'd give me the photo albums and wedding rings before their death.
A question:
If the estate has a negative net worth, does this mean the beneficiary has liability? I think there's a rule like this in Quebec, but it may be the executor who's liable rather than the beneficiary. (I don't live in Quebec.)
I'm not in Québec either, but yes, here if one accepts an inheritance unconditionally, you can end up with a negative net-worth estate and in that case you'd be legally liable.
In very exceptional circumstances an unconditional acceptance can be reversed to a conditional acceptance, but you'd need a judge's approval. A minor can only accept an inheritance conditionally, so they can't end up in debt. Also, student loans are tied to a person, they don't have to be paid out of the estate. But mortgages, credit card debt, bank loans, yes.
In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
Turning down an inheritance isn't a problem, the problem would be in refusing to deal with it at all so that it just rots in limbo or forces someone else to take on the job that the will leaves to the person refusing the responsibility: that would probably mean that other person having to start a legal action to get the proper authority: potentially time wasting and expensive and making someone clear up something which is properly for someone else to do. It might be slightly less complicated if there is no will but there is still an expectation of the next of kin taking on the job and the court/other authority having to be satisfied as to why they are not.I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
This is such a strange thing to be aggressively sanctimonious about. An inheritance is a gift. If someone offers you a gift that you don't want, it is okay to say, "no, thank you". There's nothing "not adult" about that. If the person that started this strange thread drift doesn't accept the house, there is almost certainly someone else who will. "Hey aunt, we don't want the house; it's yours". And yet you seem intent on making this some sort of selfish, lazy, self-involved decision that will lead to decaying crack houses of undetermined ownership.
Estate law in the USA varies by state, but generally this is how it works. The heirs aren't responsible for the debts, but they can't collect on the assets until the debts have been paid by the estate. In some cases there are exceptions made for e.g., covering funeral expenses.In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
IANAL, but my understanding is that in the US, debts have to be repaid using the decedent's assets before anything gets distributed to the heir(s). If the estate has a negative net worth, the heirs won't get anything because the valuable parts of the estate will be used/sold to repay as much debt as possible.
In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
Sweden: The estate (Swedish "dödsbo", or older "stärbhus") is a separate legal person that is created upon the death of the physical person. If the assets on the day of the death are not enough to cover the debts and other liabilities, it can be placed in bankruptcy - and the assets are then divided by the bankruptcy proceedings among the parties that are owed money. Once all proceedings are over, the estate "person" is dissolved. The heirs get nothing.
In this case, if a heir has taken any asset out of the estate before the proceedings are done and over, they will be held legally liable to pay back the value of what they took to the estate.
In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
Sweden: The estate (Swedish "dödsbo", or older "stärbhus") is a separate legal person that is created upon the death of the physical person. If the assets on the day of the death are not enough to cover the debts and other liabilities, it can be placed in bankruptcy - and the assets are then divided by the bankruptcy proceedings among the parties that are owed money. Once all proceedings are over, the estate "person" is dissolved. The heirs get nothing.
In this case, if a heir has taken any asset out of the estate before the proceedings are done and over, they will be held legally liable to pay back the value of what they took to the estate.
In the US, as I understand it, holding on to grandma's wedding right is technically against the law if she owes more in debts than the value of her estate. Everything has to be dissolved, people paid, and then the rest is distributed as per the will (or the law, if there is no will). But once the balances reach $0, debt isn't inheritable unless it is something you signed for (like cosigning on a mortgage or having a joint credit card).
My parents can't anymore make me pay their debts (when they die) then you or any other stranger can make me pay them. They pay them (after they are gone) with money in their accounts and from liquidating their assets, after that, the creditors are out of luck.
In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
Sweden: The estate (Swedish "dödsbo", or older "stärbhus") is a separate legal person that is created upon the death of the physical person. If the assets on the day of the death are not enough to cover the debts and other liabilities, it can be placed in bankruptcy - and the assets are then divided by the bankruptcy proceedings among the parties that are owed money. Once all proceedings are over, the estate "person" is dissolved. The heirs get nothing.
In this case, if a heir has taken any asset out of the estate before the proceedings are done and over, they will be held legally liable to pay back the value of what they took to the estate.
In the US, as I understand it, holding on to grandma's wedding right is technically against the law if she owes more in debts than the value of her estate. Everything has to be dissolved, people paid, and then the rest is distributed as per the will (or the law, if there is no will). But once the balances reach $0, debt isn't inheritable unless it is something you signed for (like cosigning on a mortgage or having a joint credit card).
My parents can't anymore make me pay their debts (when they die) then you or any other stranger can make me pay them. They pay them (after they are gone) with money in their accounts and from liquidating their assets, after that, the creditors are out of luck.
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??LOL! Did you inform him that even a free house costs money (taxes, maintenance, etc)?
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
After reading through this entire thread, I decided to update my will. The beneficiaries are one capable adult that I would trust with my life and two vulnerable adults. At least one of them is getting closer and closer to a baaaad family member, who has caused inheritance dramas that would be great for this thread. I was not directly a part of those dramas but watched them from the sideline. It has happened enough times that it's a pattern. The family member and I are not in touch and I'm pretty sure they hate me, but they'd love to get their hands on my money! They're nosy enough that they'd want to figure out where it comes from too, so they'd want to go through all of the books to "make sure the others weren't stealing anything" but really just to figure out whether I've got a sugar daddy or won the lottery. The whole concept of spending less than you make would be way over their head. They've also sued executors of an estate more times than I can count (sometimes several times over one inheritance).
We've changed our will in such a manner that the capable adults will make all the decisions and the vulnerable adults only get a check and specific items, and they can't object to that. The capable adult has absolutely no interest in *stuff* so if possible I'm sure they will try to involve the vulnerable adults in the whole process of clearing out my house etc. But if the bad family member will start to meddle, they can just decide to send them grandma's wedding ring and the money and not involve the vulnerable adults at all. Obviously, if one of my heirs decides to send the money to that bad family member afterwards, that's out of my hands, but I feel like at least I've tried to protect all of their heirs from drama as much as I can.
Something to discuss with a lawyer, if you haven't already, is either specifically mentioning that BadFamilyMember gets nothing (or leaving them one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount), and/or including a clause that anyone who sues over the will receives nothing. The former can be helpful in making intentions clear if it is a close family member, and the latter can disincentivize the greedy lawsuits.
Well, they *do* lose the costs of bringing the suit as well. It turns it into "I could fight it, pay lots of legal bills, and still may lose, OR I could just go along with it and have a guaranteed XX." It sweetens the pot for not contesting the willSomething to discuss with a lawyer, if you haven't already, is either specifically mentioning that BadFamilyMember gets nothing (or leaving them one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount), and/or including a clause that anyone who sues over the will receives nothing. The former can be helpful in making intentions clear if it is a close family member, and the latter can disincentivize the greedy lawsuits.
Ooof. Ok, if you want to dissuade them from suing, there needs to be more motivation than "one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount". Otherwise, see it from their viewpoint: "I sue and I get a lot if I win - but I might forfeit this inexpensive item if I lose?" Not much downside for them in suing in that case.
Something to discuss with a lawyer, if you haven't already, is either specifically mentioning that BadFamilyMember gets nothing (or leaving them one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount), and/or including a clause that anyone who sues over the will receives nothing. The former can be helpful in making intentions clear if it is a close family member, and the latter can disincentivize the greedy lawsuits.
After reading through this entire thread, I decided to update my will. The beneficiaries are one capable adult that I would trust with my life and two vulnerable adults. At least one of them is getting closer and closer to a baaaad family member, who has caused inheritance dramas that would be great for this thread. I was not directly a part of those dramas but watched them from the sideline. It has happened enough times that it's a pattern. The family member and I are not in touch and I'm pretty sure they hate me, but they'd love to get their hands on my money! They're nosy enough that they'd want to figure out where it comes from too, so they'd want to go through all of the books to "make sure the others weren't stealing anything" but really just to figure out whether I've got a sugar daddy or won the lottery. The whole concept of spending less than you make would be way over their head. They've also sued executors of an estate more times than I can count (sometimes several times over one inheritance).
We've changed our will in such a manner that the capable adults will make all the decisions and the vulnerable adults only get a check and specific items, and they can't object to that. The capable adult has absolutely no interest in *stuff* so if possible I'm sure they will try to involve the vulnerable adults in the whole process of clearing out my house etc. But if the bad family member will start to meddle, they can just decide to send them grandma's wedding ring and the money and not involve the vulnerable adults at all. Obviously, if one of my heirs decides to send the money to that bad family member afterwards, that's out of my hands, but I feel like at least I've tried to protect all of their heirs from drama as much as I can.
Something to discuss with a lawyer, if you haven't already, is either specifically mentioning that BadFamilyMember gets nothing (or leaving them one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount), and/or including a clause that anyone who sues over the will receives nothing. The former can be helpful in making intentions clear if it is a close family member, and the latter can disincentivize the greedy lawsuits.
Something to discuss with a lawyer, if you haven't already, is either specifically mentioning that BadFamilyMember gets nothing (or leaving them one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount), and/or including a clause that anyone who sues over the will receives nothing. The former can be helpful in making intentions clear if it is a close family member, and the latter can disincentivize the greedy lawsuits.
Ooof. Ok, if you want to dissuade them from suing, there needs to be more motivation than "one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount". Otherwise, see it from their viewpoint: "I sue and I get a lot if I win - but I might forfeit this inexpensive item if I lose?" Not much downside for them in suing in that case.
Literally the only things I would want to leave this particular relative is a wooden stake, a bunch of garlic and a vial of holy water so I'm glad the rules are different here.Careful: he or she might misconstrue your intent and use the inheritance on you directly.
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Also, just because grandparents have said it, it doesn't mean anything unless your 9-year-old has seen their will, which is what I would tell my kiddo if she said something so presumptuous. :D
Also, I'd tell my kid that means she has to be REALLY NICE to her grandparents from now on to make sure she doesn't get taken out of their will. LOL!
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Also, just because grandparents have said it, it doesn't mean anything unless your 9-year-old has seen their will, which is what I would tell my kiddo if she said something so presumptuous. :D
Also, I'd tell my kid that means she has to be REALLY NICE to her grandparents from now on to make sure she doesn't get taken out of their will. LOL!
This is pretty much what I told him. My husband wasn't at all surprised when I told him what the kid said, so I think there's probably something to it. Who knows what the situation will look like next month or next year. I can't remember if I've mentioned my BIL on the anti-mustacian hall-of-fame thread about relatives, but it's a doozy. I've always placed the odds of him sucking them dry at greater than zero. At which point, my husband and I will be taking care of them because they live next door.
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Also, just because grandparents have said it, it doesn't mean anything unless your 9-year-old has seen their will, which is what I would tell my kiddo if she said something so presumptuous. :D
Also, I'd tell my kid that means she has to be REALLY NICE to her grandparents from now on to make sure she doesn't get taken out of their will. LOL!
This is pretty much what I told him. My husband wasn't at all surprised when I told him what the kid said, so I think there's probably something to it. Who knows what the situation will look like next month or next year. I can't remember if I've mentioned my BIL on the anti-mustacian hall-of-fame thread about relatives, but it's a doozy. I've always placed the odds of him sucking them dry at greater than zero. At which point, my husband and I will be taking care of them because they live next door.
Um, what? I have so many questions.
He wasn't surprised? How has your husband not discussed with you a situation where your kid might directly inherit a house, but your young son seems to be in the loop? This seems like something you should at least know and have at least a vague plan for in case it happens.Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Also, just because grandparents have said it, it doesn't mean anything unless your 9-year-old has seen their will, which is what I would tell my kiddo if she said something so presumptuous. :D
Also, I'd tell my kid that means she has to be REALLY NICE to her grandparents from now on to make sure she doesn't get taken out of their will. LOL!
This is pretty much what I told him. My husband wasn't at all surprised when I told him what the kid said, so I think there's probably something to it. Who knows what the situation will look like next month or next year. I can't remember if I've mentioned my BIL on the anti-mustacian hall-of-fame thread about relatives, but it's a doozy. I've always placed the odds of him sucking them dry at greater than zero. At which point, my husband and I will be taking care of them because they live next door.
Um, what? I have so many questions.
Honestly, I don't know if that means that the house that they live in is supposed to go to my husband and then to my son. Or if it's supposed to go directly to my son. I'll worry about it when, god forbid, something actually happens to them. The will and/or executor has been changed several times in the last few years. I'm not playing that game and I wish they wouldn't do that to my kid. And like I said, there's still the matter of my BIL, who needs more economic outpatient care than we do.
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Also, just because grandparents have said it, it doesn't mean anything unless your 9-year-old has seen their will, which is what I would tell my kiddo if she said something so presumptuous. :D
Also, I'd tell my kid that means she has to be REALLY NICE to her grandparents from now on to make sure she doesn't get taken out of their will. LOL!
He wasn't surprised? How has your husband not discussed with you a situation where your kid might directly inherit a house, but your young son seems to be in the loop? This seems like something you should at least know and have at least a vague plan for in case it happens.Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Also, just because grandparents have said it, it doesn't mean anything unless your 9-year-old has seen their will, which is what I would tell my kiddo if she said something so presumptuous. :D
Also, I'd tell my kid that means she has to be REALLY NICE to her grandparents from now on to make sure she doesn't get taken out of their will. LOL!
This is pretty much what I told him. My husband wasn't at all surprised when I told him what the kid said, so I think there's probably something to it. Who knows what the situation will look like next month or next year. I can't remember if I've mentioned my BIL on the anti-mustacian hall-of-fame thread about relatives, but it's a doozy. I've always placed the odds of him sucking them dry at greater than zero. At which point, my husband and I will be taking care of them because they live next door.
Um, what? I have so many questions.
Honestly, I don't know if that means that the house that they live in is supposed to go to my husband and then to my son. Or if it's supposed to go directly to my son. I'll worry about it when, god forbid, something actually happens to them. The will and/or executor has been changed several times in the last few years. I'm not playing that game and I wish they wouldn't do that to my kid. And like I said, there's still the matter of my BIL, who needs more economic outpatient care than we do.
My FIL can't decide what he wants to do with his estate and is somewhat secretive about it to boot. It's changed several times over the last few years and I told my husband awhile back that I'm not borrowing trouble about it anymore. I do have some general contingency plans for the most likely outcomes, but nothing concrete until it happens. The only thing I've said about it is that if FIL follows through with the plan of leaving all the property to DH and all the cash to my BIL that we can't afford the property taxes and something will have to be sold.
Given my BIL's situation, I'm not counting on DH or DS inheriting anything and make our own plans accordingly.
My FIL can't decide what he wants to do with his estate and is somewhat secretive about it to boot. It's changed several times over the last few years and I told my husband awhile back that I'm not borrowing trouble about it anymore. I do have some general contingency plans for the most likely outcomes, but nothing concrete until it happens. The only thing I've said about it is that if FIL follows through with the plan of leaving all the property to DH and all the cash to my BIL that we can't afford the property taxes and something will have to be sold.
Given my BIL's situation, I'm not counting on DH or DS inheriting anything and make our own plans accordingly.
You might want to pass along that insight to your son. He doesn't necessarily know what's in the will (or even if there is one). People often change their wills. People's needs often change as well: Grandpa may decide to buy a condo in a senior community, and most people who do that sell the home they've got. Others do a reverse mortgage to provide end of life care, so after they die they no longer own the property. Between that and bailing out your brother-in-law, there might not be much to inherit.
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
@Villanelle If your sister's name is on the account, what happens if she were to die or become unfit to deal with financial matters before your parents? Would they 'inherit' their own money? Would it go to her partner or children?
@Villanelle If your sister's name is on the account, what happens if she were to die or become unfit to deal with financial matters before your parents? Would they 'inherit' their own money? Would it go to her partner or children?
It seems like the same would happen, but in reverse. If parents die, the account goes to her. If she dies, it would go [back to] to them.
And again, since this is a relatively insignificant portion of the total inheritance so if it goes awry somehow, it isn't especially meaningful.
Yes... but... Don't most wills with assets need to be probated, and once probated become public record, so vast majority of people will be able to request a copy of the will anyway, even if unrelated?Something to discuss with a lawyer, if you haven't already, is either specifically mentioning that BadFamilyMember gets nothing (or leaving them one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount), and/or including a clause that anyone who sues over the will receives nothing. The former can be helpful in making intentions clear if it is a close family member, and the latter can disincentivize the greedy lawsuits.
Under the rules we have here in BC (Canada), as long as someone like that is not considered a dependent, it is better not to mention them at all in the will. As soon as someone's name is written in the will, they have the right to see the text and challenge it. If the state does not consider them to be a "usual" dependent, it would be much harder for them to challenge your will if they don't appear in it.
Obviously, rules are different in different places.
Under the rules we have here in BC (Canada), as long as someone like that is not considered a dependent, it is better not to mention them at all in the will. As soon as someone's name is written in the will, they have the right to see the text and challenge it. If the state does not consider them to be a "usual" dependent, it would be much harder for them to challenge your will if they don't appear in it.Yes... but... Don't most wills with assets need to be probated, and once probated become public record, so vast majority of people will be able to request a copy of the will anyway, even if unrelated?
Obviously, rules are different in different places.
I just had a visit with my parents. My sister is named as their executor. They informed me that they are adding her name to some of their accounts (mostly their main checking and savings) and asked if I was okay with that. My mom went on to explain that after her dad passed, she was so glad he had added her a few months before his death because it made it very easy to do things like pay his outstanding electric bill, property taxes, and other things that might be due ASAP, before the estate is settled enough to open access to those funds.
Anyone who would have been entitled to a claim if the decedent had died intestate is entitled to see the will, whether they are in it or not.Under the rules we have here in BC (Canada), as long as someone like that is not considered a dependent, it is better not to mention them at all in the will. As soon as someone's name is written in the will, they have the right to see the text and challenge it. If the state does not consider them to be a "usual" dependent, it would be much harder for them to challenge your will if they don't appear in it.Yes... but... Don't most wills with assets need to be probated, and once probated become public record, so vast majority of people will be able to request a copy of the will anyway, even if unrelated?
Obviously, rules are different in different places.
I think you are right about probate eventually making the proceedings public, but it takes doing a specific search (for a fee). What I meant is that putting someone's name in the will gives them much greater legal standing to challenge the estate in court. Nothing can prevent an asshole from suing you for any old reason, but you can sure make it harder for them.
BC Court search here:
https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/deceasedSearch.do
My experience was that it took a couple of weeks to get the death certificate. A few more days to get the document appointing me the executor and -- with copies of both -- I had all the access I needed.Speaking from BC here. Accounts that aren't joint are frozen on death with the exception of funeral expenses only. The executor cannot write cheques on the decedents account, period. The executor cannot even write cheques on "The Estate of..." account either, until probate is completed.
I'm suspect that contacting the utility company in the interim, if needed, would be sufficient. Or just write the check, sign their name and print your own followed by "- Executor" and I suspect it will go thru regardless. Nobody is going to give you a hassle for doing that.
My experience was that it took a couple of weeks to get the death certificate. A few more days to get the document appointing me the executor and -- with copies of both -- I had all the access I needed.Speaking from BC here. Accounts that aren't joint are frozen on death with the exception of funeral expenses only. The executor cannot write cheques on the decedents account, period. The executor cannot even write cheques on "The Estate of..." account either, until probate is completed.
I'm suspect that contacting the utility company in the interim, if needed, would be sufficient. Or just write the check, sign their name and print your own followed by "- Executor" and I suspect it will go thru regardless. Nobody is going to give you a hassle for doing that.
I assume if you use a law firm that they'll front some of the cash needed for filing and to maintain the estate, and bill you through the nose for the privilege later. Otherwise, without a joint account the executor is on the hook for costs until probate is complete.
It gets better :) You have to pay probate fees of 1.4% *before* you can access any value of the estate. Assuming probate has gone through by tax filing, hopefully you can pay the estate taxes from the value, but depending on timing you might have to file tax and pay first as well.My experience was that it took a couple of weeks to get the death certificate. A few more days to get the document appointing me the executor and -- with copies of both -- I had all the access I needed.Speaking from BC here. Accounts that aren't joint are frozen on death with the exception of funeral expenses only. The executor cannot write cheques on the decedents account, period. The executor cannot even write cheques on "The Estate of..." account either, until probate is completed.
I'm suspect that contacting the utility company in the interim, if needed, would be sufficient. Or just write the check, sign their name and print your own followed by "- Executor" and I suspect it will go thru regardless. Nobody is going to give you a hassle for doing that.
I assume if you use a law firm that they'll front some of the cash needed for filing and to maintain the estate, and bill you through the nose for the privilege later. Otherwise, without a joint account the executor is on the hook for costs until probate is complete.
Wow. That's awful! I just did exactly what the attorney told me to do and the banks were ok with it too.
Anyone who would have been entitled to a claim if the decedent had died intestate is entitled to see the will, whether they are in it or not.
...
I wonder sometimes if she thinks losing her brother was worth the money.
"I just had a visit with my parents. My sister is named as their executor. They informed me that they are adding her name to some of their accounts (mostly their main checking and savings) and asked if I was okay with that... I told my parents I have zero problem with this, and that I have no concerns at all about my sister trying to use this to take money that isn't intended to be hers... If not, she's an asshole, and I'll still be just fine."
My SIL knew very well that my MIL's will said to split her estate equally between the 3 kids. She was the executor and the only one on MIL's accounts, which held most of her estate.Her attorney said she could keep the money, so she did. DH got his 1/3rd share of the (modest) house sale and life insurance. That influx of money revved up our ability to pay off our bills and eventually retire a little early. Getting cheated out of the balance didn't matter much to us financially in the long run, but DH hasn't spoken to his sister since.
I wonder sometimes if she thinks losing her brother was worth the money.
I've had several conversations with my spouse (and several more with my friends as a vent frustrations and worries) about what will happen with his mother's estate when that time comes, hopefully no time soon. There is very good reason to believe spouse's brother will be... challenging. My best guess is he thinks that when his mom goes, he will be set, but we have very good reasons to believe the estate will be modest. So there will be far less money than he probably thinks he is getting, and it will be split in half. Spouse's conclusion is generally that if his brother is difficult about it, tries to take more than his share in shady ways, or anything else, spouse will just sign everything over to BIL (to include dealing with all the legal hoops to jump through, taxes, etc., which there is no way BIL will be able to navigate well). And then walk away and basically say, "that was the price of having me in your life in any way at all. Lose my number." That's easier said than done, and of course I hope against hope that BIL is reasonable, fair, and pleasant about it all, so we will see what happens.
But it may well be a situation like you mention, where BIL chooses money over his relationship with his brother, which admittedly is already not a close one.
The sad part is that my husband used to be quite close with his sister.
My oldest hometown friend passed away this past summer. Elementary school, HS, College rival football teams.
( snip )
Well the drama continued and we had no idea if any of his family would be attending the farewell. Behind W2’s back, someone in the family 1 even contacted the funeral home to see if a "private" viewing could take place. Funeral director said “…only with consent of W2”
While I had held my friend as being 90% responsible for the bed he made, my final accountability scorecard changed as all of his "namesakes" were no show. Still the minister and speakers said all kinds of nice things about F1 and W2 said many nice things as well. At the after party, I had an aside with his closest friend who said he worked so hard to bring about some reconciliation, but was openly sad that he couldn’t . He told the ex wife and all the kids privately “The war was over…Please do the right thing”. Unfortunately, Bad Blood won out.
My oldest hometown friend passed away this past summer. Elementary school, HS, College rival football teams.
( snip )
Well the drama continued and we had no idea if any of his family would be attending the farewell. Behind W2’s back, someone in the family 1 even contacted the funeral home to see if a "private" viewing could take place. Funeral director said “…only with consent of W2”
While I had held my friend as being 90% responsible for the bed he made, my final accountability scorecard changed as all of his "namesakes" were no show. Still the minister and speakers said all kinds of nice things about F1 and W2 said many nice things as well. At the after party, I had an aside with his closest friend who said he worked so hard to bring about some reconciliation, but was openly sad that he couldn’t . He told the ex wife and all the kids privately “The war was over…Please do the right thing”. Unfortunately, Bad Blood won out.
As someone who didn't go to her own father's funeral after 45 years of drama, give the kids a break. You have no right to judge their choice.
It's a horrible thing to have a parent who refuses to live up to the role of father, but expects all the public approbation from the kids. Even after death.
My oldest hometown friend passed away this past summer. Elementary school, HS, College rival football teams.
( snip )
Well the drama continued and we had no idea if any of his family would be attending the farewell. Behind W2’s back, someone in the family 1 even contacted the funeral home to see if a "private" viewing could take place. Funeral director said “…only with consent of W2”
While I had held my friend as being 90% responsible for the bed he made, my final accountability scorecard changed as all of his "namesakes" were no show. Still the minister and speakers said all kinds of nice things about F1 and W2 said many nice things as well. At the after party, I had an aside with his closest friend who said he worked so hard to bring about some reconciliation, but was openly sad that he couldn’t . He told the ex wife and all the kids privately “The war was over…Please do the right thing”. Unfortunately, Bad Blood won out.
As someone who didn't go to her own father's funeral after 45 years of drama, give the kids a break. You have no right to judge their choice.
It's a horrible thing to have a parent who refuses to live up to the role of father, but expects all the public approbation from the kids. Even after death.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the don't speak ill of the dead stuff. If someone was a shitty parent, them dying doesn't change that. Everyone skipping a funeral tells me that there's some serious history and problems, and no one on the outside is qualified to judge.
Capsu - you weren't local. You didn't see the day to day. You have no idea what really happened. I'm sorry that you lost your friend, but it is entirely possible that he was a good friend to you and pretty shitty to everyone else. People are complicated. Grieve the loss of your friend, remember the good times you had, but recognize that you knew a small piece of who your friend was.
Behind W2’s back, someone in the family 1 even contacted the funeral home to see if a "private" viewing could take place. Funeral director said “…only with consent of W2”
W2 probably could have been persuaded with a phone call but now says "HARD NO"- there will be 1 celebration of life and "everyone" is welcome.
Behind W2’s back, someone in the family 1 even contacted the funeral home to see if a "private" viewing could take place. Funeral director said “…only with consent of W2”
W2 probably could have been persuaded with a phone call but now says "HARD NO"- there will be 1 celebration of life and "everyone" is welcome.
This doesn't speak well for W2 at all. "Probably could have been persuaded with a phone call" suggests she expected them to grovel a bit before *maybe* deigning to consent. If she wouldn't consent to a private viewing for his kids (and why on earth not? She wouldn't have had to be there, and it would have allowed them to pay their final respects at no cost to her), it's hard to imagine that they would have taken "everyone welcome" at face value for the public service.
Due to a very complicated situation, I may someday receive a similar request and I would agree in a heartbeat.
Or maybe W2 had to hear about it from the funeral home rather than directly.
I can imagine if W2 had made a real effort with F1, and then F1 decided to call the funeral home to request this rather than even talk to W2, that might be a little weird. But I don't have an inside scoop on that situation. Also, I definitely get leaving sleeping dogs like when you don't owe a family member anything.
Perhaps she was afraid the kids would mutilate the corpse.lol
Perhaps she was afraid the kids would mutilate the corpse.lol
I will never understand the flying monkeys. They are more invested in the fake Happy Families notion so they can feel good about themselves and their view of the world, never understanding what it takes for children to reject a parent or what kind of creep it takes to discard their child.
When the victim DOES get away, and the Flying Monkeys fail in dragging them back for further abuse, there is sometimes a nasty justice when the Flying Monkey becomes subject to the abuse that the victim previously was.
But you don't understand, Grim! They're special! They're better than the designated victim, so the bad things aren't supposed to happen to them!
(Please read this with all of the sarcasm the Internet has to offer.)
I didn't realize you knew my sister!But you don't understand, Grim! They're special! They're better than the designated victim, so the bad things aren't supposed to happen to them!
(Please read this with all of the sarcasm the Internet has to offer.)
Indeed, I was raised in a family that had exactly that kind of value system. I've also seen it in the occasional workplace, church, charity, social club, and school. That's why I can laugh about it.
On a more serious note, you've identified a very common phenomenon in groups of people where there's one designated person who is destructive, predatory, abusive, or otherwise toxic. People develop strategies to avoid being abused themselves, and to gain status within the group. Part of what a flying monkey thinks he or she is doing is buying immunity from the abuse. When that tacit contract isn't upheld by the abuser, it comes as a surprise because the flying monkey truly believes there's a quid pro quo.
I've made a study of groups of toxic or dysfunctional people. They're like a messed-up Imperial court, with a toxic Emperor in the middle of it and a bunch of courtiers, profiteers, and other people jockeying for position or simply trying to get by and dodge the worst of the abuse. They end up unintentionally creating the environment the toxic person needs to survive, and perpetuating the toxicity by filling the vacuum left when the family alcoholic sobers up or the abusive boss leaves.
I've identified seven different ways in which individual people unintentionally contribute to a toxic family or environment. The process showed me how to identify toxic groups of people from a distance, without getting involved, and how to permanently leave a toxic group to do some things differently. I published the book a few years ago on Amazon.
For anyone who remembers the saga of the Destroyer of the Last Will and Testament (DotLWaT!), here is a brief recap and update. For those who don't know or can't remember, DotLWaT actually did go to the home of deceased and destroyed the Will within 24 of the death. This was more than a year ago.
Here is a short recap, leaving out all of the juicy drama about the funeral planning and related insanity:
1. Mama Zamboni died after a brief illness that involved hospitalization. She was old enough to have adult children--Mr. Zamboni and his siblings--but she was not that old and she didn't have cancer or anything like that, so the death was fairly sudden and unexpected.
1. DotLWaT went straight from the hospital to Mama Zamboni's home right after her death and found the Will that evening. She informed a few people including Mr. Zamboni and his sister that she found it. DotLWaT stated that she didn't like who is named as heir in it.
2. DotLWaT threatened to burn the Will. Everyone assumed she was joking.
3. DotLWaT then changed her story to "there was no Will" and insisted that she be named Executor of the Estate. The sister of the deceased (Mr. Zamboni's Aunt), whom everyone including DotLWaT seemed to agree was actually named the Executor by the deceased, said "fine, you got it, I don't want to be involved."
4. Mama Zamboni lived alone and unfortunately she was a Hoarder to an extent that she could have been featured on the TV show. Out of obligation, Mr. Zamboni offered to either physically help with her belongings or pay to hire help to clean out her home. DotLWaT got angry at the suggestion. She said she wanted to go through it all herself and she didn't want Mr. Zamboni or his sister involved. Mama Zamboni was a retired public school teacher of modest means who had immigrated to the US without a dime, so it's not like there were priceless heirlooms involved, but DotLWaT apparently thought there is some sort of buried treasure in the home I guess? Dunno. I can't even imagine what she thought she would find.
5. Mr. Zamboni's sister and Mr. Zamboni agreed that DotLWaT could clear out the home herself if that is what she wanted to do, but they balked at DotLWaT's stated plan to move into the home. They agreed that it should be listed for sale and the proceeds split among the heirs via the probate process. DotLWaT begrudgingly agreed to list it for sale after she cleared it out.
So here we are, more than a year after DotLWaT successfully petitioned the court to be appointment Executor. Has Mama Zamboni's home been listed for sale? Nope. No surprises there. Mr. Zamboni's sister has been trying to keep tabs on it, but Mr. Zamboni has ceased all communication with DotLWaT to preserve his own sanity.
Meanwhile, another family member has recently died. Although DotLWaT had openly and repeatedly professed hatred of this person, once he became gravely ill you know DotLWaT began hovering. He seemed to trust her and have no clue what mean and horrible things she has said about him over the years. You may have successfully guessed that she went to the hospital immediately upon learning he died. She said she wanted to see his body and then she told Mr. Zamboni's sister that her plan was going to go from there into his home to "look for important papers." Seriously, WTF. I guess she thought she'd get there before anyone else and the hospital would fork over all the stuff from his locker to her. Then she'd go into his place in a repeat of what she had done when Mama Zamboni died.
But in a twist she wasn't expecting, the hospital staff wouldn't even let her in to see him because she isn't "next of kin." She must have asked about his stuff, because she told Mr. Zamboni's sister that hospital staff had informed her his possessions all go to his wife because he was MARRIED! Which she didn't even know! To be fair, while we knew he had a very serious lady friend, who was often there when we visited and who seemed to be taking care of him for the past couple of years, we also didn't know they had officially married. So his wife inherited everything, much to DotLWaT's annoyance . . . I certainly hope she stayed out of his home and didn't get in there somehow to rifle through his stuff under the auspices of "helping" his wife, but I wouldn't put anything past DotLWaT at this point.
I didn't realize you knew my sister!But you don't understand, Grim! They're special! They're better than the designated victim, so the bad things aren't supposed to happen to them!
(Please read this with all of the sarcasm the Internet has to offer.)
Indeed, I was raised in a family that had exactly that kind of value system. I've also seen it in the occasional workplace, church, charity, social club, and school. That's why I can laugh about it.
On a more serious note, you've identified a very common phenomenon in groups of people where there's one designated person who is destructive, predatory, abusive, or otherwise toxic. People develop strategies to avoid being abused themselves, and to gain status within the group. Part of what a flying monkey thinks he or she is doing is buying immunity from the abuse. When that tacit contract isn't upheld by the abuser, it comes as a surprise because the flying monkey truly believes there's a quid pro quo.
I've made a study of groups of toxic or dysfunctional people. They're like a messed-up Imperial court, with a toxic Emperor in the middle of it and a bunch of courtiers, profiteers, and other people jockeying for position or simply trying to get by and dodge the worst of the abuse. They end up unintentionally creating the environment the toxic person needs to survive, and perpetuating the toxicity by filling the vacuum left when the family alcoholic sobers up or the abusive boss leaves.
I've identified seven different ways in which individual people unintentionally contribute to a toxic family or environment. The process showed me how to identify toxic groups of people from a distance, without getting involved, and how to permanently leave a toxic group to do some things differently. I published the book a few years ago on Amazon.
Based on her bullshit when I was co-exec of my parent's estate, I have kept contact with her to the bare minimum. All my other siblings havedeveloped amnesiaresumed cordial relations with her and I am the odd man out. Apparently they can't see she's simply a snake who has recoiled and is awaiting her next opportunity to strike. It won't be me, nor will I pick up the pieces for her next victim. Maybe I need to read your book.
Me too, what is the title of this book?
Me too, what is the title of this book?
Hi! Check your inbox; I sent a link.
With my family, the biggest controversary has been guilt trips over NOT taking a relative's stuff.Awww, that is so sweet!
When my Grandma died, my parents asked us to come out to help do some trailer runs to the thrift store. During the visit, my mom asked me to go into the house to find anything I wanted. I walked through every room, remembering her house and things I did there as a kid. I told my mom that I didn't feel right taking anything from the house (and it was obvious that seemingly everyone in my family felt the same way because it was untouched for weeks after she died).
Eventually, I discovered the one and only thing I ended up taking -- a stack of unfinished crossword puzzles in her den, each page half done in her handwriting. For the last six years, a few times per month I'll hang out with her and help her with the puzzles she started and didn't finish.
Two books left.
Potential for some drama here.
My dad just passed away. He had a will, written in 2009. My brother is executor. This is in the UK. I’m on a different continent. I was able to be there with him for his last 3 weeks (it’s good to be FI).
The will is simple. Mostly everything is 50/50 between my brother and me. There are several areas that could turn dramatic, the main one is the family business. Dad started the business in the early 80’s. Brother worked for it then was made partner with dad. Dad retired about 10 years ago and brother took over, expanding the business. He has worked very hard at it.
It seems I will inherit 25% of this business. I don’t want it. Brother ran it, it’s his business. We all assumed that this had been taken care of in the will and brother would get dad’s shares, or they died with him. Apparently not. I've said I will sign it over to him, but we have to be sure about the tax consequences.
A nice movie I just watched on Amazon Prime "The Bridge at Harimaya" has a touching storyline dealing with after life issues as well as other ones. As a bonus, it is filmed in a beautiful part of rural Japan.
https://www.amazon.com/Harimaya-Bridge-Ben-Guillory/dp/B005FDWERE
Potential for some drama here.
My dad just passed away. He had a will, written in 2009. My brother is executor. This is in the UK. I’m on a different continent. I was able to be there with him for his last 3 weeks (it’s good to be FI).
The will is simple. Mostly everything is 50/50 between my brother and me. There are several areas that could turn dramatic, the main one is the family business. Dad started the business in the early 80’s. Brother worked for it then was made partner with dad. Dad retired about 10 years ago and brother took over, expanding the business. He has worked very hard at it.
It seems I will inherit 25% of this business. I don’t want it. Brother ran it, it’s his business. We all assumed that this had been taken care of in the will and brother would get dad’s shares, or they died with him. Apparently not. I've said I will sign it over to him, but we have to be sure about the tax consequences.
Potential for some drama here.I'm sorry for your loss.
My dad just passed away. He had a will, written in 2009. My brother is executor. This is in the UK. I’m on a different continent. I was able to be there with him for his last 3 weeks (it’s good to be FI).
The will is simple. Mostly everything is 50/50 between my brother and me. There are several areas that could turn dramatic, the main one is the family business. Dad started the business in the early 80’s. Brother worked for it then was made partner with dad. Dad retired about 10 years ago and brother took over, expanding the business. He has worked very hard at it.
It seems I will inherit 25% of this business. I don’t want it. Brother ran it, it’s his business. We all assumed that this had been taken care of in the will and brother would get dad’s shares, or they died with him. Apparently not. I've said I will sign it over to him, but we have to be sure about the tax consequences.
Regarding the business there are two possible routes to go down. One is that you accept ownership of your share of the business and transfer it to your brother. The other is that you disclaim that part of your inheritance altogether. This might be difficult, depending on the wording of the will (if it is mentioned separately then it is reasonably simple, if it is part of everything (eg a statement such as "half each of everything I own") I'm not sure if you can do this, you might need to take advice.
You do need advice on the tax implications if your father's estate is worth more than £325k (£500k if he left his house to his children or grandchildren), because a gift specifically mentioned in a will can be tax free (with the tax paid out of the remainder of the estate) and the tax payable on it from the rest of the estate can change the balance of what each person gets quite significantly.
The gov.uk site is a good starting point but won't answer all the questions. You and your brother need to work out the consequences before acting, and that may need specialist advice.
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm35161
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax
The worst thing that can happen, as demonstrated by this thread, is that families fall out over an inheritance, and because all this complication happens when people are grieving it's easier for that to happen. I hope you navigate a successful way through it all with your family.
It sounds as though you are getting on top of this and having productive discussions with yoru brother, good for you.The worst thing that can happen, as demonstrated by this thread, is that families fall out over an inheritance, and because all this complication happens when people are grieving it's easier for that to happen. I hope you navigate a successful way through it all with your family.
Thanks.
I did come across this: Deed of Variation
https://www.gov.uk/alter-a-will-after-a-death
"You can change a person’s will after their death, as long as any beneficiaries left worse off by the changes agree."
Not sure if this is an option for us. There are some other complications. In one of his more lucid moments, dad asked me to make gifts from his estate to a few charities and two people he had left out. It doesn't amount to a lot (40k) and brother and I decided it would be easier for us to just make the gifts ourselves after the monies are disbursed. Probably better to do through a Deed of Variation.
Regarding the business, I believe it has 100% exemption from estate tax.
My FIL invested in an obviously topping out stock at the height of the pandemic stock market, went mostly all in, and has ridden it to a parabolic 90 plus percent loss on something like $3M. My wife and I have built our own fireable stash, greatly helped by the pandemic, and I'm still working but not out of need but more to be extra secure with an unknown terminal inflation picture. We're pretty much FI in other words. But his plan had been to split his wealth between my wife and her siblings after he dies in the future. We tried warning him numerous times that he was in a bad investment and that he needed a good exit strategy or diversification, and he violated his own maximum 20pct loss rule. But he's held it. Fortunately he kept a few hundred thousand in a savings account so he isn't destitute, but he still seems to think it's going to shoot back up, which I doubt will happen.
My FIL invested in an obviously topping out stock at the height of the pandemic stock market, went mostly all in, and has ridden it to a parabolic 90 plus percent loss on something like $3M. My wife and I have built our own fireable stash, greatly helped by the pandemic, and I'm still working but not out of need but more to be extra secure with an unknown terminal inflation picture. We're pretty much FI in other words. But his plan had been to split his wealth between my wife and her siblings after he dies in the future. We tried warning him numerous times that he was in a bad investment and that he needed a good exit strategy or diversification, and he violated his own maximum 20pct loss rule. But he's held it. Fortunately he kept a few hundred thousand in a savings account so he isn't destitute, but he still seems to think it's going to shoot back up, which I doubt will happen.
You could offer to act as the property manager...
You could offer to act as the property manager...
I'm not sure how involved I want to get in the whole thing.
If Older Daughter ends up with the property, she would probably be ok to deal with.
Younger Daughter is the type of person I really want to avoid, so it's a no go with her.
You could offer to act as the property manager...
I'm not sure how involved I want to get in the whole thing.
If Older Daughter ends up with the property, she would probably be ok to deal with.
Younger Daughter is the type of person I really want to avoid, so it's a no go with her.
An excellent Mustachian suggestion and an equally well thought out Mustachian response! :)
You could offer to act as the property manager...
I'm not sure how involved I want to get in the whole thing.
If Older Daughter ends up with the property, she would probably be ok to deal with.
Younger Daughter is the type of person I really want to avoid, so it's a no go with her.
An excellent Mustachian suggestion and an equally well thought out Mustachian response! :)
eostache you could always quit the job if YD gets involved, or OD is not ok to deal with.
^Wise move. Always better to be clutter free anyway.
I'm sorry to read about your LL's failing health. He sounds like a nice guy.
We are onlookers to this impending inheritance situation, so not our circus. We may be affected as it involves the rental we have been living in for a dozen years.
If not, honestly I’d suggest being honest with older brother rather than hoping he doesn’t find out and *documenting* younger’s clear understanding of implications so when older has to fight younger later in court, he’s at least got some solid proof on his side.
Also realize that the younger son will very likely be liable for gift tax and will have to pay an extra 20% himself on that money. Whereas as an actual inheritance would likely owe 0 in taxes on it.
Spending lots and lots of extra money just to give him a couple extra 100k. This whole situation is really saying "not worth it" from every possible angle.
Nobody but my DH would care about having a ruined relationship with his older son. He is an asshole.
My parents are meticulous: sister gets financial help buying babystuff? I get the same amount. I get financial help moving abroad? Sister gets the same amount. Within a week all is equal. Sister and I are estranged (she was estranged with our parents for a while, too. Our parents still gave her money whenever they helped me), but at least we won't have to have this argument, ever. It helps.
@Catbert - do you have any concerns of you/your husband needing that money for long term care? What would happen in the event your medical or care expenses exceed your shared and/or individual pots of money? Given how expensive & unpredictable LTC can be, I always struggle with the idea of giving away part of an "inheritance" before you die.This, so much this.
My parents are meticulous: sister gets financial help buying babystuff? I get the same amount. I get financial help moving abroad? Sister gets the same amount. Within a week all is equal. Sister and I are estranged (she was estranged with our parents for a while, too. Our parents still gave her money whenever they helped me), but at least we won't have to have this argument, ever. It helps.
Mine were the same, without the estrangement. It definitely helps.
My parents are meticulous: sister gets financial help buying babystuff? I get the same amount. I get financial help moving abroad? Sister gets the same amount. Within a week all is equal. Sister and I are estranged (she was estranged with our parents for a while, too. Our parents still gave her money whenever they helped me), but at least we won't have to have this argument, ever. It helps.
I've always believed that help today is better than money later, if there's a genuine need (not enabling) or if it's the kind of thing that lasts.
My own preference, with regard to my adult daughter and niece, is to provide help when they're young, when they really need it, and when the assistance results in something that lasts. Investing now for a grandchild's education seems to me like an effective use of money, and I'd rather do that and see them benefit from it (or at least have a shot) instead of either squandering the resources on plastic crap or watching someone I love take on unnecessary debt.
The big three-- education, housing, and vehicles-- are increasing in price even faster than the rate of inflation, and one reason why is that it's become commonplace to pay for these things with borrowed money. Whether I (or my heirs) pay with cash or with borrowed money won't change the price point one iota.
My dad died recently, and we're not at the inheritance drama stage yet. But, the day his death notice appeared in the paper, a home health aide who had taken care of him from time to time showed up at the door asking about his paintings (not for sale, not yet anyway). Scavengers move quickly!
My dad died recently, and we're not at the inheritance drama stage yet. But, the day his death notice appeared in the paper, a home health aide who had taken care of him from time to time showed up at the door asking about his paintings (not for sale, not yet anyway). Scavengers move quickly!
My dad died recently, and we're not at the inheritance drama stage yet. But, the day his death notice appeared in the paper, a home health aide who had taken care of him from time to time showed up at the door asking about his paintings (not for sale, not yet anyway). Scavengers move quickly!
Sorry for your loss.
That’s a pretty gutsy move. I’d like to think their heart was in the right place somehow, but sheesh.
My dad died recently, and we're not at the inheritance drama stage yet. But, the day his death notice appeared in the paper, a home health aide who had taken care of him from time to time showed up at the door asking about his paintings (not for sale, not yet anyway). Scavengers move quickly!
Sorry for your loss.
That’s a pretty gutsy move. I’d like to think their heart was in the right place somehow, but sheesh.
I think I am reading this wrong? I first thought that he was a painter and the home health aide wanted to buy one of his paintings after his death, which sounds sweet.
The jealousy I noticed the week of the funeral service: she hid my new pair of trousers so I couldn't wear them to the funeral service where I was reading the In Memoriam. I had checked my suitcase 3 times before the service, and then found them when I packed to leave the next day; and in the family group picture we took after the funeral dinner, she photoshopped some extra weight on me :D How petty can you get? (BTW: she's 50, I'm 51)
No, the level is more that of a 3-year old, who knows she's not allowed to hit or bite, so destroys a drawing you made or your favourite book.
My Dad passed a fortnight ago. Estranged Sister and I spent a week at Mum's to sort the service and cremation. Funnily enough, Sis and I work together really well, but the conversations other than Dad's passing were only an inch deep: 'what shall we have for dinner tonight?', 'will you take the trash out?'You know her better, but I would confront that shit head-on. Writing a letter might be cathartic. Sorry for your loss.
Sister was told I was executor of our parents' wills about 6 months ago, and was really upset, even offering to pay for 'rectifying' their wills. Parents refused her 'offer'. A few days after Dad's passing, Mum called the Notary who made the wills - while Sis and I could listen in - to ask what needed to be done, and he said 'nothing' :). Battle postponed until Mum passes :D
Sis is and always has been jealous of me. There is no reason, from the outside she has a better life than me: husband makes a lot of money, 3 kids are doing well, she had 2 small businesses doing what she loved, nice vacations, nice house, on top of housework, time for voluntary work (school parents' association), husband that spoils her (surprise trips to Paris and Dubai, for instance :)). Whatever she puts her mind and hands to, she can do.
The jealousy I noticed the week of the funeral service: she hid my new pair of trousers so I couldn't wear them to the funeral service where I was reading the In Memoriam. I had checked my suitcase 3 times before the service, and then found them when I packed to leave the next day; and in the family group picture we took after the funeral dinner, she photoshopped some extra weight on me :D How petty can you get? (BTW: she's 50, I'm 51)
The jealousy I noticed the week of the funeral service: she hid my new pair of trousers so I couldn't wear them to the funeral service where I was reading the In Memoriam. I had checked my suitcase 3 times before the service, and then found them when I packed to leave the next day; and in the family group picture we took after the funeral dinner, she photoshopped some extra weight on me :D How petty can you get? (BTW: she's 50, I'm 51)
Wtf? Is she one of those who think they can just joke around about anything anytime, and "you need to lighten up-bro"?
The jealousy I noticed the week of the funeral service: she hid my new pair of trousers so I couldn't wear them to the funeral service where I was reading the In Memoriam. I had checked my suitcase 3 times before the service, and then found them when I packed to leave the next day; and in the family group picture we took after the funeral dinner, she photoshopped some extra weight on me :D How petty can you get? (BTW: she's 50, I'm 51)
Wtf? Is she one of those who think they can just joke around about anything anytime, and "you need to lighten up-bro"?
Seriously, this is demented. Photoshopping on weight and hiding your pants??
Sounds like she still has issues to unjumble.
After a few years, and at Mum's insistence, my parents and Sis have some form of regular contact. Mum insisted because Sis has no anchors, no people who can (bother to) stand up to her if she deviates from generally accepted behaviour.
Sounds like she still has issues to unjumble.
This sounds like my own sister to be honest. She's always had issues, no compunction about behaving badly, we hoped she would grow up but never did.After a few years, and at Mum's insistence, my parents and Sis have some form of regular contact. Mum insisted because Sis has no anchors, no people who can (bother to) stand up to her if she deviates from generally accepted behaviour.
Same with our sister but even that had its limits. My parents tried to get her to curtail her bad behavior, but in the end they just threw up their hands and told the rest of us to deal with it because "family". We did but now that our parents are gone, my youngest sibling finally decided to break ties completely for her own well being. I maintain some contact but have limited it in recent months for similar reasons. BIL (sister's husband) left the ring a long time ago, there's no one to speak up and check her behaviour not that it really worked that well anyway.
Sounds like she still has issues to unjumble.
This sounds like my own sister to be honest. She's always had issues, no compunction about behaving badly, we hoped she would grow up but never did.After a few years, and at Mum's insistence, my parents and Sis have some form of regular contact. Mum insisted because Sis has no anchors, no people who can (bother to) stand up to her if she deviates from generally accepted behaviour.
Same with our sister but even that had its limits. My parents tried to get her to curtail her bad behavior, but in the end they just threw up their hands and told the rest of us to deal with it because "family". We did but now that our parents are gone, my youngest sibling finally decided to break ties completely for her own well being. I maintain some contact but have limited it in recent months for similar reasons. BIL (sister's husband) left the ring a long time ago, there's no one to speak up and check her behaviour not that it really worked that well anyway.
Sounds like she still has issues to unjumble.
This sounds like my own sister to be honest. She's always had issues, no compunction about behaving badly, we hoped she would grow up but never did.After a few years, and at Mum's insistence, my parents and Sis have some form of regular contact. Mum insisted because Sis has no anchors, no people who can (bother to) stand up to her if she deviates from generally accepted behaviour.
Same with our sister but even that had its limits. My parents tried to get her to curtail her bad behavior, but in the end they just threw up their hands and told the rest of us to deal with it because "family". We did but now that our parents are gone, my youngest sibling finally decided to break ties completely for her own well being. I maintain some contact but have limited it in recent months for similar reasons. BIL (sister's husband) left the ring a long time ago, there's no one to speak up and check her behaviour not that it really worked that well anyway.
Classic controlling parent move: they couldn't control the person who was behaving badly, so they shifted their effort to control the victims of the bad behavior, to manipulate them into absorbing more of it.
We are onlookers to this impending inheritance situation, so not our circus. We may be affected as it involves the rental we have been living in for a dozen years.
We have been renting from a private LL man (in his 90s) for a dozen years. Our rental is “rustic” and we have been paying way under market rent. Our LL has never raised the rent on us. We are in a 5-plex in town. Our LL is elderly and a widower and over the years we have become friendly with him and helped him with many things at this rental, and at his nearby house, and with personal things sometimes. We would sometimes share meals or go out to lunch or dinner together. Of course we always pay our rent on time and keep an eye out for things happening at this rental property.
He has an older daughter (OD) (single, almost 70) who we get along with. She has had somewhat unstable living situations but for the past few years has been a live-in caretaker for a fairly wealthy widow. OD has adult children and maybe even grandchildren but I don’t know if she has much of a relationship with any of them. I don’t think LL has any relationship with these grandchildren, maybe barely knows them.
He has a younger daughter (YD), married, no kids, late 50s. OD is a half sister. YD’s mother may have been LL’s wife who died a couple decades ago. I don’t know the details of the family relationships. YD does not like OD, although OD would like to be able to get along. So OD keeps her distance but calls or visits LL father from time to time when she can.
We get along with YD ok, but observe that she is entitled, narcissist and manipulative.
YD lives in another state, doesn’t work, and seems financially stable. Her husband is nice enough and we get along with him too. I think YD has a house she has long owned in a third state that she rents out, so she has some assets there. Her and her husband have health issues that limit what they can do.
.......
My Dad passed a fortnight ago. Estranged Sister and I spent a week at Mum's to sort the service and cremation. Funnily enough, Sis and I work together really well, but the conversations other than Dad's passing were only an inch deep: 'what shall we have for dinner tonight?', 'will you take the trash out?'
Sister was told I was executor of our parents' wills about 6 months ago, and was really upset, even offering to pay for 'rectifying' their wills. Parents refused her 'offer'. A few days after Dad's passing, Mum called the Notary who made the wills - while Sis and I could listen in - to ask what needed to be done, and he said 'nothing' :). Battle postponed until Mum passes :D
Sis is and always has been jealous of me. There is no reason, from the outside she has a better life than me: husband makes a lot of money, 3 kids are doing well, she had 2 small businesses doing what she loved, nice vacations, nice house, on top of housework, time for voluntary work (school parents' association), husband that spoils her (surprise trips to Paris and Dubai, for instance :)). Whatever she puts her mind and hands to, she can do.
The jealousy I noticed the week of the funeral service: she hid my new pair of trousers so I couldn't wear them to the funeral service where I was reading the In Memoriam. I had checked my suitcase 3 times before the service, and then found them when I packed to leave the next day; and in the family group picture we took after the funeral dinner, she photoshopped some extra weight on me :D How petty can you get? (BTW: she's 50, I'm 51)
My Dad passed a fortnight ago. Estranged Sister and I spent a week at Mum's to sort the service and cremation. Funnily enough, Sis and I work together really well, but the conversations other than Dad's passing were only an inch deep: 'what shall we have for dinner tonight?', 'will you take the trash out?'
Sister was told I was executor of our parents' wills about 6 months ago, and was really upset, even offering to pay for 'rectifying' their wills. Parents refused her 'offer'. A few days after Dad's passing, Mum called the Notary who made the wills - while Sis and I could listen in - to ask what needed to be done, and he said 'nothing' :). Battle postponed until Mum passes :D
Sis is and always has been jealous of me. There is no reason, from the outside she has a better life than me: husband makes a lot of money, 3 kids are doing well, she had 2 small businesses doing what she loved, nice vacations, nice house, on top of housework, time for voluntary work (school parents' association), husband that spoils her (surprise trips to Paris and Dubai, for instance :)). Whatever she puts her mind and hands to, she can do.
The jealousy I noticed the week of the funeral service: she hid my new pair of trousers so I couldn't wear them to the funeral service where I was reading the In Memoriam. I had checked my suitcase 3 times before the service, and then found them when I packed to leave the next day; and in the family group picture we took after the funeral dinner, she photoshopped some extra weight on me :D How petty can you get? (BTW: she's 50, I'm 51)
It continues:
- the week before the funeral service I had put Dad's facebook to 'don't let others know when you are online', to give Mum the time to look at his facebook undisturbed (and not freak friends and family out) and only then decide what to do with it. This weekend, I have found that all settings were changed to 'everyone gets to see everything' and 'stories only to be sent to [sister]'. Together with Mum I have changed all settings I could find to the most restrictive options. I don't have facebook, so I hope I caught all.
- sister and her middle daughter were with Mum on Tuesday to pick up Dad's ashes from the crematorium. Afterwards, she helped Mum sort through a small pile of insurance papers, from an insurance firm sister used to work for. Mum wasn't confident all was correct, so on Saturday we had another look, and I discovered that it actually related to 3 different insurances, and that there was a mistake in 1 of the certificates. The papers were quite jumbled up, 1 policy of about 56 pages was in 3 parts inbetween the letters, for instance. Mum will not let sister help anymore.
- the Sunday after the funeral I found a SIM card on the floor of the guest bedroom were sister was staying. I kept it safely. A week later Mum tells me that she took Dad's mobile phone to the phoneshop to change the contract to her name, and that they couldn't find the SIM card in the phone. My guess is that sister has cloned or copied information from the card (she's savvy, and her husband is high up in IT). I've told Mum that I found a/the card. I am now searching the web to see how I can find out if it's actually cloned. I can't help if it was just copied (that's static information), but if cloned I can render it useless, perhaps, by asking the phone company for a new SIM-card with the same phone number.
Wow, that’s some seriously strange behaviour. Do you ever call her out directly for her antics? It also sounds like you don’t have concrete proof that she is doing most of these though, so why not plant something intentionally to get her to slip up? I’m sure we can all come up with some suggestions on items you could set up to be tempting if she decided to go digging through your luggage again.
My ex passed away suddenly and unexpectedly last week. There's no will. There's already been some drama and likely to be more. Services and such went OK, however, and the main source of drama behaved themselves for that.
Drama source is a control freak who is likely to use the possession of sentimental items as leverage to continue control with my kids; but a will wouldn't likely have made much difference for that case. There's not much of monetary value to fight over, however, except for one classic car in middling condition but great sentimental value.
It also seems that employer beneficiaries were filled out based on what USPS Informed Delivery says is coming to my house this afternoon. My brother happens to work at the same company, so I had gotten the relevant phone numbers to give to my kids this week once services were over. It's looking like that won't be necessary, though.
Apparently you can buy a version of a glitter bomb on Etsy. They don't have the cameras, which is too bad, but it would still be funny. Mark Rober should definitely go into manufacturing and sell the high end, camera loaded glitter bombs. He'd probably make a fortune.My ex passed away suddenly and unexpectedly last week. There's no will. There's already been some drama and likely to be more. Services and such went OK, however, and the main source of drama behaved themselves for that.
Drama source is a control freak who is likely to use the possession of sentimental items as leverage to continue control with my kids; but a will wouldn't likely have made much difference for that case. There's not much of monetary value to fight over, however, except for one classic car in middling condition but great sentimental value.
It also seems that employer beneficiaries were filled out based on what USPS Informed Delivery says is coming to my house this afternoon. My brother happens to work at the same company, so I had gotten the relevant phone numbers to give to my kids this week once services were over. It's looking like that won't be necessary, though.
I'm sorry for your loss, and for your children's grief, and that you are having to worry about it. It does seem like the insurance companies and places like Vanguard have plenty of mechanisms in place to safeguard inheritances and make sure they get to the intended heir without too much interference.
Nothing really can be done about the sentimental items that have no other value, though. What type of age are your children? Little, K-12, or 18+? This is age dependent, but if there is something specific one of your children wants, then my advice is that at some point they ask control freak for it. Ideally they should ask for all things they can think of at once. Something like "Hi, I know there is a picture of my Dad and me with a big fish we caught that he had on his desk. May I have it now, please? Also, he and I use to do XXX together a lot, my I please have YYY item associated with that now, please?"
Control freak might surprise you and just say "Of course! here you go!" If control freak says "no" or "maybe later" or "only if you do XYZ" or "what picture? No you can't come look for anything" or "no, he wanted me to have that" then I would cut control freak out of my life, go no contact, and he or she better hope they never need my help. Easier said than done if it is a grandparent and aunt or uncle, though. Pretty easy if it is a step parent who they aren't close to. If they are younger, even HS age, hopefully there is a way you can tactfully let control freak know that you expect any photos or other highly sentimental items to be preserved for his children and given to them all at once in the fairly near future. No trickle out over time BS. Good luck with it all, and again I'm sorry.
Slight shift of gears here.
My X is estranged from our adult children. Within the last 5 years he updated his will to name our eldest as executor with everything going 50/50 to the 2 daughters upon his death. His relationship with both daughters broke down severely a couple years later and they are no contact. It is unclear if he changed the will and may be hoping to mend things with his kids so has left it.
After the last straw with our girls he married the affair partner in 2021 (a foreign born co-worker, the same age as our eldest daughter). Odds are good they will not stay together for all the usual reasons but mostly that she is likely using him for US citizenship which obviously, once secured, makes him highly jettison-able. Old farts don't often stay married to young foreign chicks especially when their True Love Story started out as a family-destroying affair and they have zero in common culturally or generationally. This is another reason we doubt he changed the will, he must realize that the current marriage is likely to end at some point and he would not like his wealth going to the twatwaffle flatterfuck.
If the X croaks while still married she will get to stay in the home as half owner since she is on the deed. If he didn't change his will I would think that all still stands, but perhaps the widow could sue for some chunk of it as assets they accumulated after marriage (?). She has no children so there are no step kids who might have a case of the grabbies. Since she is European I doubt she is familiar with the nuances of state inheritance law but she is an accountant so is not necessarily stupid about financial things and might be highly motivated to research all of this.
A question my girls and I were wondering is how they would they even get notified of the death at all since they are not in contact with their dad? What is to keep the widow from simply grabbing all she can without consequences? I know that anything with the kids listed as beneficiaries would go to them directly from the institutions where they are held once a death certificate is presented, but WHO does the presenting if the widow pulls some shenanigans? How would my girls ever hold the widow accountable for anything?
Who steps in front of the widow to start the cycle of notifications if she just sits there? It occurred to us that the Asshat could be dead already for all we know.
Anybody got stories or advice?
My advice to my girls was to expect nothing. They are not greedy about the money but do wish they could retrieve a couple of physical things they recall from their grandmother, and if there was any money they would probably use it for a house down payment rather than hookers and blow. He is tainted severely in their minds and his only contribution to their lives now would be much like a rotted compost can help a garden grow. The anxiety about how they would be notified is real and it would be nice to be assured how it works -- google was no help sussing out who is responsible for it and puts so much on the "duty" of this or that person to act as named in the will. I don't trust this chick to respond to any sense of duty.Nice to "see" you here, MNP. Your voice has been missed. I think you had more of an impact here that you realized. Great to hear you're enjoying your post-FIRE life. Don't be a stranger!
The X lives many states away so it is not a matter of stopping by or one day reading a local obit. The X is 55, the NewForeignWife NFW is 31. There may not be an obit since he has no family there 2000 miles from everyone who ever mattered to us.
He will not be ailing anytime soon to need a PoA and it seems like the NFW will be gone to younger pastures before he would become infirm. It doesn't feel like that is the way it would go, and I think she will be watching her youth and fertility slip away (he is snipped) and won't want to hang around while he rusts out.
Yeah... my great-uncle and great-aunt never had children, so they listed all their nieces and nephews on their will (including my mom). My great-aunt passed away long before he did, and he told everyone he wouldn't change his will.
~snip~
Ay ay ay.... people. Amazing.
I wouldn't be surprised if the NFW gets him to change everything to give to her since he already objectively ruined his life for her and now he must show that his mid life crisis buffoonery was all worth it by making her fully legitimate. For now.
It is also just as possible that he changes it all back one day.... or maybe gives it to a third, fourth, or fifth wife as the estrangement with his kids continues and he never meets his grandchildren. And he is just as likely to die alone. Peter Pan refuses to be held to anything he commits to and he may go all in over and over until the music stops and he finds himself standing alone.
I read that the coroner and funeral directors are supposed to make some legal notifications (like to social security) and I suppose if he was unmarried the local government or sheriff would look for next of kin.
If he is married at death it is likely the kids wouldn't find out until the current wife absconds with whatever she can get, selling precious things for pennies at a yard sale. Nothing can be done there.
The kids are not going to keep even a threadbare relationship with him for the money and have found no contact as the way to protect themselves.
Was going to add, I've never heard of a requirement for the mortuary to notify Social Security. But I believe there's info on the Social Security website about death records? Maybe a chat with a SocSec rep would be a place to start.
Related to this, I continue to be amazed at how many people - mostly men - are willing to blow up their lives and those of their families and others around them - just for a physical relationship with a younger person. Have a friend who was married 40 years who discovered her 65 year old husband having an affair with his 30 year old married co-worker. Friend got a divorce pronto (to her husband's surprise) and she is managing to cope okay, but their wonderful 2 adult children and young grandchildren have cut ties with him.
I'm genuinely wondering, Was it worth it? Is it biology, or pride, or ingrained entitlement, or fear of their own mortality, or what? I'd be curious to read some anonymous discussion from these cheaters if they would give honest answers, especially several years post-divorce.
Was going to add, I've never heard of a requirement for the mortuary to notify Social Security. But I believe there's info on the Social Security website about death records? Maybe a chat with a SocSec rep would be a place to start.
Related to this, I continue to be amazed at how many people - mostly men - are willing to blow up their lives and those of their families and others around them - just for a physical relationship with a younger person. Have a friend who was married 40 years who discovered her 65 year old husband having an affair with his 30 year old married co-worker. Friend got a divorce pronto (to her husband's surprise) and she is managing to cope okay, but their wonderful 2 adult children and young grandchildren have cut ties with him.
I'm genuinely wondering, Was it worth it? Is it biology, or pride, or ingrained entitlement, or fear of their own mortality, or what? I'd be curious to read some anonymous discussion from these cheaters if they would give honest answers, especially several years post-divorce.
I think they feel they will never get caught, so they never ask, "is this worth losing my relationship with my kids and grand kids". So IMO it's more just a divorce (ha) from reality and what could happen. They act on impulse and lust and the insecurity of aging, rather than saying, "I want to be with this woman so much that I'm willing to risk my relationships with my entire family".
MNP, do you or your daughters have a signed original or even a photocopy of that will naming them as heirs?
There seems to be an assumption on this thread that people are changing their wills frequently as their relationships change. Some people do but I think it's more likely that many people don't get around to it. It's a hassle because it means you have to think about it and then involve a lawyer, notary (some banks will no longer allow staff to notarize wills), and witness signatures.
My state allows a photocopy to be submitted as "the" will in probate, but only if nothing with an inked signature and notary can be found.
But if they/you don't have any copy of a will that he made, then I suspect the point about whether he may have revised it or not is probably moot if he dies while married.
Was going to add, I've never heard of a requirement for the mortuary to notify Social Security. But I believe there's info on the Social Security website about death records? Maybe a chat with a SocSec rep would be a place to start.
Related to this, I continue to be amazed at how many people - mostly men - are willing to blow up their lives and those of their families and others around them - just for a physical relationship with a younger person. Have a friend who was married 40 years who discovered her 65 year old husband having an affair with his 30 year old married co-worker. Friend got a divorce pronto (to her husband's surprise) and she is managing to cope okay, but their wonderful 2 adult children and young grandchildren have cut ties with him.
I'm genuinely wondering, Was it worth it? Is it biology, or pride, or ingrained entitlement, or fear of their own mortality, or what? I'd be curious to read some anonymous discussion from these cheaters if they would give honest answers, especially several years post-divorce.
I think they feel they will never get caught, so they never ask, "is this worth losing my relationship with my kids and grand kids". So IMO it's more just a divorce (ha) from reality and what could happen. They act on impulse and lust and the insecurity of aging, rather than saying, "I want to be with this woman so much that I'm willing to risk my relationships with my entire family".
Some older men also seek out younger women because they think they're more impressionable and aren't as financially secure or established in their own careers, and so more easily "controlled."
MNP - sounds like NFW did you a favor by taking him off your hands! Good riddance to him...
@MissNancyPryor I'm sorry he treated you and his daughters so badly.
MNP - sounds like NFW did you a favor by taking him off your hands! Good riddance to him...
Some people are given a golden ticket and piss it away. It's hard at times to be empathetic with people that cause their own problems.
Yes, my parents have received multiple inheritances and lawsuit settlement windfalls. Each time my Dad and Step Mom tell me "oh good, we got this big chunk of money so we can pay off the cards / build an addition to our house / throw a big party / go on nice vacations and now we are all set." Then, less than a year later, the money is gone and they are racking up their cards again and calling their kids literally crying when a totally normal thing happens like routine home or car maintenance is needed. They've done this four times. Seriously.Wow.
It never occurs to them to invest the money from windfalls and earn interest instead of immediately spending it all. I've resigned myself to the fact that they are mentally incapable of being on the winning side of compound interest. It is just how they roll.
It never occurs to them to invest the money from windfalls and earn interest instead of immediately spending it all. I've resigned myself to the fact that they are mentally incapable of being on the winning side of compound interest. It is just how they roll.
It never occurs to them to invest the money from windfalls and earn interest instead of immediately spending it all. I've resigned myself to the fact that they are mentally incapable of being on the winning side of compound interest. It is just how they roll.
Also will say "wow"
I inherited money 4 years ago from my parents estate that was mostly sale of their home and I still have 100% of that and then some.
One sister did some improvements on her house but other sister's husband bought a vintage Corvette, for which he has to pay for storage and other related costs. This is the guy who wants to retire like right now but spends money like crazy especially when it comes to cars. Sister is annoyed at his constant complaints about still working and wanting to retire (doesn't help that he's younger and still wants HER to work) yet when they got a good financial boost it was spend, spend, spend.
It never occurs to them to invest the money from windfalls and earn interest instead of immediately spending it all. I've resigned myself to the fact that they are mentally incapable of being on the winning side of compound interest. It is just how they roll.
Also will say "wow"
I inherited money 4 years ago from my parents estate that was mostly sale of their home and I still have 100% of that and then some.
One sister did some improvements on her house but other sister's husband bought a vintage Corvette, for which he has to pay for storage and other related costs. This is the guy who wants to retire like right now but spends money like crazy especially when it comes to cars. Sister is annoyed at his constant complaints about still working and wanting to retire (doesn't help that he's younger and still wants HER to work) yet when they got a good financial boost it was spend, spend, spend.
* I blew nearly all of the $60,000 I inherited from my mother. And that would’ve been entirely with her blessing because I have plenty of money myself and she was always urging me to “spend some of that money! “ I waltzed around acting like Lady Bountiful with some of it, giving large chunks to organizations I respect.
* I highly approve of buying an antique Corvette.
Just offering alternate point of use here!
Not exactly inheritance drama, but digital clean-up drama: my Father passed away in May; the last 10 years he spent a lot of his time on his tablet. I have been spending hours on this tablet ever since his passing: opening all the apps, checking if it needed a log-in, checking if it was requiring payment, stopping the payment, unsubscribing. Then, I do the same for the websites (because the 'favourite' websites do not match up to the apps). Checking if the websites have actually stopped taking payment, or have reimbursed any moneys paid. Finding passwords, keeping track of log-in details,....
My Mother (87) wants to use this tablet, but is afraid of hackers. Some programmes are still needed, so they can't be removed, and the tablet can't be reset to factory settings.
Many of the emails come from websites he subscribed to, which confuses my Mother no end, so unsubscribing was a hell of a task. She still wanted to see what my Father was interested in, but is also confused if an email invites her to a workshop or reading on a subject my Father was interested in.
I didn't realise on how many places I had to unable the notification emails on Meta, for instance. I don't have Meta, and after seeing this, I definitely don't want it.
Oof. How close is the mom to reaching the 5 year look back? Would it be possible for her to cover the costs to get to the five year mark? (I don’t know if that’s legal though.)
In a situation that I really hope my parents are paying attention to, one of mom's cousins failed to get a Medicaid asset protection trust in place before needing to be admitted into long term care. One of her children has already received "his inheritance" via cash gifts to buy a house. The idea was that he would get enough to buy a place in the city he lived in and she would get the family home free and clear, which seemed fair because the family home is worth significantly more than he received. They both supposedly agreed to early and less vs. later and more. These cash gifts took place long enough ago that they fall outside the lookback period, while the trust didn't get set up until 2-3 years ago. At this point, the reality of LTC cost has hit and it appears that the parent will likely burn through all of their cash/savings before it's all said and done (physically doing okay, but needs memory care, so could very well be in the nursing home for years) and will need Medicaid for LTC. Because the trust is less than 5 years old, it will be subject to asset recovery. So, while neither sibling is likely to receive anything from "the estate", one sibling is extra salty and has made some noise about eventually suing her brother for half of what he received from their mom to buy his house. I can understand why she's upset and it's not fair, but it's going to likely get a whole lot uglier before it gets better.
In a situation that I really hope my parents are paying attention to, one of mom's cousins failed to get a Medicaid asset protection trust in place before needing to be admitted into long term care. One of her children has already received "his inheritance" via cash gifts to buy a house. The idea was that he would get enough to buy a place in the city he lived in and she would get the family home free and clear, which seemed fair because the family home is worth significantly more than he received. They both supposedly agreed to early and less vs. later and more. These cash gifts took place long enough ago that they fall outside the lookback period, while the trust didn't get set up until 2-3 years ago. At this point, the reality of LTC cost has hit and it appears that the parent will likely burn through all of their cash/savings before it's all said and done (physically doing okay, but needs memory care, so could very well be in the nursing home for years) and will need Medicaid for LTC. Because the trust is less than 5 years old, it will be subject to asset recovery. So, while neither sibling is likely to receive anything from "the estate", one sibling is extra salty and has made some noise about eventually suing her brother for half of what he received from their mom to buy his house. I can understand why she's upset and it's not fair, but it's going to likely get a whole lot uglier before it gets better.
My stepdad has signed over some land to my sister and her husband, and the will is written such that it comes out of their "third", but there's no knowing if he'll end up in care and end up with nothing.In a situation that I really hope my parents are paying attention to, one of mom's cousins failed to get a Medicaid asset protection trust in place before needing to be admitted into long term care. One of her children has already received "his inheritance" via cash gifts to buy a house. The idea was that he would get enough to buy a place in the city he lived in and she would get the family home free and clear, which seemed fair because the family home is worth significantly more than he received. They both supposedly agreed to early and less vs. later and more. These cash gifts took place long enough ago that they fall outside the lookback period, while the trust didn't get set up until 2-3 years ago. At this point, the reality of LTC cost has hit and it appears that the parent will likely burn through all of their cash/savings before it's all said and done (physically doing okay, but needs memory care, so could very well be in the nursing home for years) and will need Medicaid for LTC. Because the trust is less than 5 years old, it will be subject to asset recovery. So, while neither sibling is likely to receive anything from "the estate", one sibling is extra salty and has made some noise about eventually suing her brother for half of what he received from their mom to buy his house. I can understand why she's upset and it's not fair, but it's going to likely get a whole lot uglier before it gets better.
Watch and learn, mustachians:
If you elect to give children their "inheritance" early, always give all children the same amount at the same time regardless of their need. Then you may avoid this type of kerfuffle between your children later.
This is, of course, assuming that there are no extenuating circumstances that need to be treated more carefully, such as an adult with a disability who needs more for care, or an adult with a massive substance abuse problem who can't handle having money responsibly.
My stepdad has signed over some land to my sister and her husband, and the will is written such that it comes out of their "third", but there's no knowing if he'll end up in care and end up with nothing.In a situation that I really hope my parents are paying attention to, one of mom's cousins failed to get a Medicaid asset protection trust in place before needing to be admitted into long term care. One of her children has already received "his inheritance" via cash gifts to buy a house. The idea was that he would get enough to buy a place in the city he lived in and she would get the family home free and clear, which seemed fair because the family home is worth significantly more than he received. They both supposedly agreed to early and less vs. later and more. These cash gifts took place long enough ago that they fall outside the lookback period, while the trust didn't get set up until 2-3 years ago. At this point, the reality of LTC cost has hit and it appears that the parent will likely burn through all of their cash/savings before it's all said and done (physically doing okay, but needs memory care, so could very well be in the nursing home for years) and will need Medicaid for LTC. Because the trust is less than 5 years old, it will be subject to asset recovery. So, while neither sibling is likely to receive anything from "the estate", one sibling is extra salty and has made some noise about eventually suing her brother for half of what he received from their mom to buy his house. I can understand why she's upset and it's not fair, but it's going to likely get a whole lot uglier before it gets better.
Watch and learn, mustachians:
If you elect to give children their "inheritance" early, always give all children the same amount at the same time regardless of their need. Then you may avoid this type of kerfuffle between your children later.
This is, of course, assuming that there are no extenuating circumstances that need to be treated more carefully, such as an adult with a disability who needs more for care, or an adult with a massive substance abuse problem who can't handle having money responsibly.
It's unlikely, because he has cancer, and every time he goes into the hospital we worry that he won't come out.
But anyway, I don't care at all. My brother probably does, but honestly, my BIL does more for that man than anyone else (except his brothers and sisters who drive him to dr's appts), so they deserve it!
In a situation that I really hope my parents are paying attention to, one of mom's cousins failed to get a Medicaid asset protection trust in place before needing to be admitted into long term care. One of her children has already received "his inheritance" via cash gifts to buy a house. The idea was that he would get enough to buy a place in the city he lived in and she would get the family home free and clear, which seemed fair because the family home is worth significantly more than he received. They both supposedly agreed to early and less vs. later and more. These cash gifts took place long enough ago that they fall outside the lookback period, while the trust didn't get set up until 2-3 years ago. At this point, the reality of LTC cost has hit and it appears that the parent will likely burn through all of their cash/savings before it's all said and done (physically doing okay, but needs memory care, so could very well be in the nursing home for years) and will need Medicaid for LTC. Because the trust is less than 5 years old, it will be subject to asset recovery. So, while neither sibling is likely to receive anything from "the estate", one sibling is extra salty and has made some noise about eventually suing her brother for half of what he received from their mom to buy his house. I can understand why she's upset and it's not fair, but it's going to likely get a whole lot uglier before it gets better.
That's a tough one. It wasn't handled optimally by mom originally. That's neither child's fault, but now there's a mess where it kind of falls on the children to come to a fair solution.
Does DS have enough money to float medical costs for a year or two, to get mom to the end of the clawback? Would that even work, legally? Heck, even if the DD agreed to pay him back some of that once she got and presumably sold the house (which would eat away at the 50/50 fairness, but be better than nothing for her), that would still leave DD with something instead of nothing.
What a mess. And as Zamboni point out, this demonstrates the need to be do everything evenly up front. Mom could have signed the house over to DD, with a contract that allowed mom to stay in it rent-free until death, for example. It's one thing if it is a small amount compared to the size of the estate (e.g. a $1m estate and someone gets $20k to get them to 20% on a house and avoid PMI). But when it is half or a significant portion of the estate, it sets up so many opportunities for problems.
I think sometimes parents forget that their estate isn't just money that will help their children. It's also something that can dramatically affect the relationship between those children. While she had no ill intent and everyone agreed to this situation, it is likely going to do irreparable damage to the sibling's relationship. And had mom consulted a lawyer and spent a couple hundred dollars, she likely would have been advised against this, or advised to transfer the house to Sister now, not set up the trust immediately. Instead, she has children who are likely going to deeply resent each other, all because of how the estate division happened.
Wills aren't always enforced. The executor does whatever he or she wants, and can't be stopped. It is possible to sue, but even if the judgement goes in your favor the assets are still gone. The same applies in many cases where a spouse is left the use of your assets. That spouse can decide to override your wishes and even disinherit your kids in favor of the pool boy. Inheritances are never guaranteed.
Wills aren't always enforced. The executor does whatever he or she wants, and can't be stopped. It is possible to sue, but even if the judgement goes in your favor the assets are still gone. The same applies in many cases where a spouse is left the use of your assets. That spouse can decide to override your wishes and even disinherit your kids in favor of the pool boy. Inheritances are never guaranteed.
This is so true. I understand why so many wealthy people have an attorney as the executor rather than a family member. Better to pay the fees than have a fall out between siblings over perceptions of fairness.
My grandparents had 4 children and my grandfather wanted to make sure his kids got equal amounts. So he set it up so everyone gets 25% of particular large pot of money he had. It was all in writing, neat as a pin. Then one of the sons asked for an got 80% of the money that was in his "share" of that pot in advance. So grandfather reduced his share in the documentation, neat as a pin, in writing.
Then grandparents died, and the son who had gotten his money from the pot early lobbied another sibling, the one with the most money of her own, to just ignore grandfather's wishes and divide up the remaining money by splitting it 4 ways. So then it became 2 against 2. In the end grandfather's wishes were honored by the executor, but it was a mess, and it was not a great thing for everyone to be arguing about while riding in a minivan together on the way to grandmother's funeral.
Wills aren't always enforced. The executor does whatever he or she wants, and can't be stopped. It is possible to sue, but even if the judgement goes in your favor the assets are still gone. The same applies in many cases where a spouse is left the use of your assets. That spouse can decide to override your wishes and even disinherit your kids in favor of the pool boy. Inheritances are never guaranteed.
This is so true. I understand why so many wealthy people have an attorney as the executor rather than a family member. Better to pay the fees than have a fall out between siblings over perceptions of fairness.
My grandparents had 4 children and my grandfather wanted to make sure his kids got equal amounts. So he set it up so everyone gets 25% of particular large pot of money he had. It was all in writing, neat as a pin. Then one of the sons asked for an got 80% of the money that was in his "share" of that pot in advance. So grandfather reduced his share in the documentation, neat as a pin, in writing.
Then grandparents died, and the son who had gotten his money from the pot early lobbied another sibling, the one with the most money of her own, to just ignore grandfather's wishes and divide up the remaining money by splitting it 4 ways. So then it became 2 against 2. In the end grandfather's wishes were honored by the executor, but it was a mess, and it was not a great thing for everyone to be arguing about while riding in a minivan together on the way to grandmother's funeral.
Indeed. I used to know a family where the couple's shared assets were to be divided evenly between all the kids. When the man died after a long illness, their real estate empire (jointly owned by him and his wife, who built it up from scratch) was divided into two. Half went to his sons. The remainder was to be used to support his wife the rest of her life, after which time it would be divided among the daughters, who received nothing at the time of their father's death except some personal effects. The lady lived another decade, while her female offspring mostly struggled and her male offspring did very well because the value of their assets increased as did the ones in her care. But at the end of her life, she decided that it wasn't fair that her remaining assets had appreciated so that they were worth almost double the value of what her sons had received. (There had been a similar appreciation of the assets her sons had received, plus those heirs had received the benefit of ten years of income from those assets, but that didn't factor into the lady's calculations.) She therefore changed her will so that her remaining assets were divided evenly among the boys and girls. The result was that her boys received roughly triple what her girls did. The will allowed any of the children to buy the lady's house at a fraction of its market value, and one of the adult children made arrangements to do that, except the executor brother responded to lobbying from some of the in-laws and cancelled the sale so that the house could be sold at full market value and the proceeds divided. Really it was like something out of a novel.
Wills aren't always enforced. The executor does whatever he or she wants, and can't be stopped. It is possible to sue, but even if the judgement goes in your favor the assets are still gone. The same applies in many cases where a spouse is left the use of your assets. That spouse can decide to override your wishes and even disinherit your kids in favor of the pool boy. Inheritances are never guaranteed.
This is so true. I understand why so many wealthy people have an attorney as the executor rather than a family member. Better to pay the fees than have a fall out between siblings over perceptions of fairness.
My grandparents had 4 children and my grandfather wanted to make sure his kids got equal amounts. So he set it up so everyone gets 25% of particular large pot of money he had. It was all in writing, neat as a pin. Then one of the sons asked for an got 80% of the money that was in his "share" of that pot in advance. So grandfather reduced his share in the documentation, neat as a pin, in writing.
Then grandparents died, and the son who had gotten his money from the pot early lobbied another sibling, the one with the most money of her own, to just ignore grandfather's wishes and divide up the remaining money by splitting it 4 ways. So then it became 2 against 2. In the end grandfather's wishes were honored by the executor, but it was a mess, and it was not a great thing for everyone to be arguing about while riding in a minivan together on the way to grandmother's funeral.
Indeed. I used to know a family where the couple's shared assets were to be divided evenly between all the kids. When the man died after a long illness, their real estate empire (jointly owned by him and his wife, who built it up from scratch) was divided into two. Half went to his sons. The remainder was to be used to support his wife the rest of her life, after which time it would be divided among the daughters, who received nothing at the time of their father's death except some personal effects. The lady lived another decade, while her female offspring mostly struggled and her male offspring did very well because the value of their assets increased as did the ones in her care. But at the end of her life, she decided that it wasn't fair that her remaining assets had appreciated so that they were worth almost double the value of what her sons had received. (There had been a similar appreciation of the assets her sons had received, plus those heirs had received the benefit of ten years of income from those assets, but that didn't factor into the lady's calculations.) She therefore changed her will so that her remaining assets were divided evenly among the boys and girls. The result was that her boys received roughly triple what her girls did. The will allowed any of the children to buy the lady's house at a fraction of its market value, and one of the adult children made arrangements to do that, except the executor brother responded to lobbying from some of the in-laws and cancelled the sale so that the house could be sold at full market value and the proceeds divided. Really it was like something out of a novel.
Wills aren't always enforced. The executor does whatever he or she wants, and can't be stopped. It is possible to sue, but even if the judgement goes in your favor the assets are still gone. The same applies in many cases where a spouse is left the use of your assets. That spouse can decide to override your wishes and even disinherit your kids in favor of the pool boy. Inheritances are never guaranteed.
This is so true. I understand why so many wealthy people have an attorney as the executor rather than a family member. Better to pay the fees than have a fall out between siblings over perceptions of fairness.
My grandparents had 4 children and my grandfather wanted to make sure his kids got equal amounts. So he set it up so everyone gets 25% of particular large pot of money he had. It was all in writing, neat as a pin. Then one of the sons asked for an got 80% of the money that was in his "share" of that pot in advance. So grandfather reduced his share in the documentation, neat as a pin, in writing.
Then grandparents died, and the son who had gotten his money from the pot early lobbied another sibling, the one with the most money of her own, to just ignore grandfather's wishes and divide up the remaining money by splitting it 4 ways. So then it became 2 against 2. In the end grandfather's wishes were honored by the executor, but it was a mess, and it was not a great thing for everyone to be arguing about while riding in a minivan together on the way to grandmother's funeral.
Indeed. I used to know a family where the couple's shared assets were to be divided evenly between all the kids. When the man died after a long illness, their real estate empire (jointly owned by him and his wife, who built it up from scratch) was divided into two. Half went to his sons. The remainder was to be used to support his wife the rest of her life, after which time it would be divided among the daughters, who received nothing at the time of their father's death except some personal effects. The lady lived another decade, while her female offspring mostly struggled and her male offspring did very well because the value of their assets increased as did the ones in her care. But at the end of her life, she decided that it wasn't fair that her remaining assets had appreciated so that they were worth almost double the value of what her sons had received. (There had been a similar appreciation of the assets her sons had received, plus those heirs had received the benefit of ten years of income from those assets, but that didn't factor into the lady's calculations.) She therefore changed her will so that her remaining assets were divided evenly among the boys and girls. The result was that her boys received roughly triple what her girls did. The will allowed any of the children to buy the lady's house at a fraction of its market value, and one of the adult children made arrangements to do that, except the executor brother responded to lobbying from some of the in-laws and cancelled the sale so that the house could be sold at full market value and the proceeds divided. Really it was like something out of a novel.
These stories--really most of the stories in this thread--make me sad and a smidge nervous.
Presumably, I'll be privy to 2 estate settlements in my life, my parents and DH's parents. (I'll be somewhat on the sidelines of the latter, but as Team Villanelle Household, I'll be in the thick of it with DH.) Maybe I'm naive, but I expect my sibling, who will be executor, to be entirely reasonable. We may squabble over who gets the best charm on mom's charm bracelet (mom knows I want the bracelet and has made it clear that's what is to happen, but that Sister--S--gets one charm of her choice). Or how long I have to come collect the sentimental items I want, which may be a pain, depending on where I'm living at the time. Or even whether we accept X offer on the house or hold out for more. That kind of thing. But in general, I don't see us fighting over money, I trust her to be reasonable and respectful as executor, and I anticipate no issue. But I wonder if many of the people from the stories in this thread said the same things, up until it happened.
With DH, I fully anticipate his sibling being greedy and presumptuous and even outright absconding with the figurative silverware if he can. That estate should be a fairly small amount, and probably far less than BIL imagines/hopes. I am guessing DH is the executor since BIL is an irresponsible mess at all times, or perhaps MIL's husband. (As I understand it, they have kept almost entirely separate assets, and the house is only in her name and was hers before they married. But he's a lawyer, so I can see him being executor, possibly. Unlike my family, DH's doesn't talk about this stuff so it's just a guess.)
DH and I have talked about it and a very likely outcome of this all is to tell BIL that everything is his except a few sentimental items, but that he then has to take on the work. IOW, DH walks away, not only from any money, but from the tax filings and paperwork to prove death and dealing with realtors (although the house has a reverse mortgage so there may not be a sale) and anything else. We are hopeful that if DH decides that's the best course, it will avoid some of the drama seen in this thread, but who really knows? Even if BIL is reasonable and rational and friendly (which he has never been, on his best day), DH *may* still decide to hand everything over as BIL needs it far, far, far more than we do. He currently lives with his mom and has no job, and no prospects, so when she dies, he will likely be a couple months from being on the streets. So DH may just consider it his gift to BIL, and one last chance for BIL to finally get his life together. OTOH, it's entirely possible--probable, even--that any money would end up in a fancy truck and/or a liquor store till, and in a year, BIL will again be broke. What he really needs is an annuity of some kind, but I'm not sure MIL has enough money for an annuity (or a controlled monthly amount) that someone could live off of , even if she stipulated that was what she wanted to happen.
Anyway, I guess my point is that while I think I have a good idea of how all the involved parties will respond, and that there are rough plans to avoid most drama, I wonder if that's not just wishful thinking. Did most of the people in these stories have good reason to believe everything would be fine, until it wasn't? Or were these relationships already strained? Were there signs that it would devolve into greed, even if the people involved didn't see them? Or were these healthy, stable relationships among healthy, stable, reasonable, honest people that exploded anyway? Were there warning signs, or was it truly a surprise to everyone that this stuff happened?
This sounds a little familiar. In "it's the way things were back then", my grandfather's will was written to give the "big" trust to 2 of the boys (the 3rd boy had gotten his inheritance already as he'd been in business with his dad, so he'd gotten part of the business). The small trust - basically the house (about 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the big one) - would go to 3 daughters + a widow of another son. I guess that the daughters were supposed to be taken care of by their husbands? Anyway, the trust was written so that his 2nd wife can live on the interest and principal, and the kids get nothing until she dies. She lived to be 98 - 18 years past when my grandfather died (I know my story is in the early pages here).Wills aren't always enforced. The executor does whatever he or she wants, and can't be stopped. It is possible to sue, but even if the judgement goes in your favor the assets are still gone. The same applies in many cases where a spouse is left the use of your assets. That spouse can decide to override your wishes and even disinherit your kids in favor of the pool boy. Inheritances are never guaranteed.
This is so true. I understand why so many wealthy people have an attorney as the executor rather than a family member. Better to pay the fees than have a fall out between siblings over perceptions of fairness.
My grandparents had 4 children and my grandfather wanted to make sure his kids got equal amounts. So he set it up so everyone gets 25% of particular large pot of money he had. It was all in writing, neat as a pin. Then one of the sons asked for an got 80% of the money that was in his "share" of that pot in advance. So grandfather reduced his share in the documentation, neat as a pin, in writing.
Then grandparents died, and the son who had gotten his money from the pot early lobbied another sibling, the one with the most money of her own, to just ignore grandfather's wishes and divide up the remaining money by splitting it 4 ways. So then it became 2 against 2. In the end grandfather's wishes were honored by the executor, but it was a mess, and it was not a great thing for everyone to be arguing about while riding in a minivan together on the way to grandmother's funeral.
Indeed. I used to know a family where the couple's shared assets were to be divided evenly between all the kids. When the man died after a long illness, their real estate empire (jointly owned by him and his wife, who built it up from scratch) was divided into two. Half went to his sons. The remainder was to be used to support his wife the rest of her life, after which time it would be divided among the daughters, who received nothing at the time of their father's death except some personal effects. The lady lived another decade, while her female offspring mostly struggled and her male offspring did very well because the value of their assets increased as did the ones in her care. But at the end of her life, she decided that it wasn't fair that her remaining assets had appreciated so that they were worth almost double the value of what her sons had received. (There had been a similar appreciation of the assets her sons had received, plus those heirs had received the benefit of ten years of income from those assets, but that didn't factor into the lady's calculations.) She therefore changed her will so that her remaining assets were divided evenly among the boys and girls. The result was that her boys received roughly triple what her girls did. The will allowed any of the children to buy the lady's house at a fraction of its market value, and one of the adult children made arrangements to do that, except the executor brother responded to lobbying from some of the in-laws and cancelled the sale so that the house could be sold at full market value and the proceeds divided. Really it was like something out of a novel.
Anyway, the trust was written so that his 2nd wife can live on the interest and principal, and the kids get nothing until she dies. She lived to be 98 - 18 years past when my grandfather died (I know my story is in the early pages here).
I mean, by the time she died, my mother and an aunt had already passed, so I ended up with 1/12 of the smaller trust directly (about $10k).
About half of the sibs were bitter about the 2nd marriage and the "money-grubbing 2nd spouse". Fun fact: she was absolutely lovely, and raised 12 kids basically on her own because her husband was an alcoholic and died young. Also: she worked as a librarian, and had a pension and her own house. So, many years after my grandfather died, she moved back to her own home (near a few of her kids), sold the house to my cousin and his wife. The last time I saw her was at my mother's funeral. Absolutely amazing woman, but the uncles were worried she's spend their inheritance. She didn't.Anyway, the trust was written so that his 2nd wife can live on the interest and principal, and the kids get nothing until she dies. She lived to be 98 - 18 years past when my grandfather died (I know my story is in the early pages here).
I mean, by the time she died, my mother and an aunt had already passed, so I ended up with 1/12 of the smaller trust directly (about $10k).
You're lucky it was in a trust. Second spouses are notorious for draining the estate for the benefit of their own bio-kids, their pool boys, or the Johnny-come-lately professional bibble-babblers. There's always a flock of those buzzards circling around the elderly and infirm, if they have anything worth the effort of guilting them out of it. My paternal grandfather encountered some near the end of his life, and he intentionally strung them along because he was concerned that he wouldn't get emergency assistance otherwise when he needed it. Brilliant old man-- I do miss him.
Johnny-come-lately professional bibble-babblers
My mother-in-law passed away last week. One daughter and both sons will be reasonable.
My wife's sister, well, we'll see.
I'm expecting a shit show from her, but maybe she'll just take her 1/4th and call it a day. We can hope.
My mother-in-law passed away last week. One daughter and both sons will be reasonable.
My wife's sister, well, we'll see.
I'm expecting a shit show from her, but maybe she'll just take her 1/4th and call it a day. We can hope.
Well, it's been a week, the funds are beginning to arrive, and so far, not a peep that I'm aware of.
I'm keeping our fingers crossed!
My mother-in-law passed away last week. One daughter and both sons will be reasonable.
My wife's sister, well, we'll see.
I'm expecting a shit show from her, but maybe she'll just take her 1/4th and call it a day. We can hope.
Well, it's been a week, the funds are beginning to arrive, and so far, not a peep that I'm aware of.
I'm keeping our fingers crossed!
It would be rude of us to hope it turns into a shitshow for our enjoyment, right? Okay, I'll try not to wish that.
Any reference to Succession makes me happy!
.......sibs were bitter about the 2nd marriage and the "money-grubbing 2nd spouse"...........she worked as a librarian, and had a pension.......
Any reference to Succession makes me happy!
Five is a nightmare. You can't do anything with five.
My mother-in-law passed away last week. One daughter and both sons will be reasonable.
My wife's sister, well, we'll see.
I'm expecting a shit show from her, but maybe she'll just take her 1/4th and call it a day. We can hope.
Well, it's been a week, the funds are beginning to arrive, and so far, not a peep that I'm aware of.
I'm keeping our fingers crossed!
It would be rude of us to hope it turns into a shitshow for our enjoyment, right? Okay, I'll try not to wish that.
It is our right to be entertained.
Any reference to Succession makes me happy!
Five is a nightmare. You can't do anything with five.
My mother-in-law passed away last week. One daughter and both sons will be reasonable.
My wife's sister, well, we'll see.
I'm expecting a shit show from her, but maybe she'll just take her 1/4th and call it a day. We can hope.
Well, it's been a week, the funds are beginning to arrive, and so far, not a peep that I'm aware of.
I'm keeping our fingers crossed!
It would be rude of us to hope it turns into a shitshow for our enjoyment, right? Okay, I'll try not to wish that.
It is our right to be entertained.
Here we are now, entertain us
I feel stupid, and contagious
Here we are now, entertain us. -Teen Spirit , Nirvana
Extended family drama brewing here. Someone died without a will and the surviving step parent is being a jerk about family items.
Said surviving step parent doesn't ever read anything in full and apparently is unaware that in their state biological children are entitled to half the deceased parent's assets if there's no will. Children would have been perfectly happy with getting the sentimental family items which they want and not going after their share of the house, car, bank accounts, etc.
But because the step parent is a drama addict, the lawyers will get money and the kids won't be any worse off than they would have been if they hadn't pushed for probate.
Good for you for doing right by him, in whatever form you were comfortable with. I'm sorry for your loss, but it sounds like it wasn't unexpected (none of us knows exactly what day we'll die, right?). Would it be possible to frame the property cleanout as a treasure hunt? I know it's a metric crap-ton of work, and I wish you the best getting through it.
jeninco, this sounds like you might want to look for an auction house or something that has the contacts to really get the word out for a sale to the people who want to buy this stuff. You might try asking local union halls, etc if you don't have the knowledge yourself.
... MrINCO is loathe to move them lest he inadvertently miss some important motorcycle part...
jeninco, this sounds like you might want to look for an auction house or something that has the contacts to really get the word out for a sale to the people who want to buy this stuff. You might try asking local union halls, etc if you don't have the knowledge yourself.
Yeah, I go with some extended family members to a lot of estate auctions here in the Midwest, and it seems to work. The good auctioneers do a great job of assessing and squeezing value out (then take their % of course, but worth it in most cases). I have found that quality items, when listed on the pre-read flyer, will pull high rollers if in fact there is value.
However, this a required first step is getting MrINCO 'adjusted' to the method...... MrINCO is loathe to move them lest he inadvertently miss some important motorcycle part...
@jeninco, hugs to you and thanks for the flash into my future if my BIL predeceases us. Although he's now in treatment for various compulsive diagnoses, so maybe things will change.
Dragging this back round, perhaps when family comes to visit there will be a bit of drama? Their sister loves selling stuff online (not that she could identify 70% of what's in that house either...)
That's what Mum is doing with Dad's miniature train collection and accessories. My BIL and a nephew with a lot of spare time have offered to sell it for the estate. Nephew went to a proper dealer store, but was offered peanuts, so online selling it is! I told Mum where she could find Dad's catawiki-password (where he bought most of his items) and they will take it there, or at least base their prices on what Dad paid for it.
That's what Mum is doing with Dad's miniature train collection and accessories. My BIL and a nephew with a lot of spare time have offered to sell it for the estate. Nephew went to a proper dealer store, but was offered peanuts, so online selling it is! I told Mum where she could find Dad's catawiki-password (where he bought most of his items) and they will take it there, or at least base their prices on what Dad paid for it.
Ah, dealing with the stuff of the deceased, when the deceased wanted such and such to happen to the stuff.
I say: dear deceased, you should have taken care of that before you died, then. The burden you place on those left behind to do something complicated with your specialized crap is not cool.
I know! It is so damn strange and frankly, unfathomable to me, when someone (I have known at LEAST 2 of these someones) renovated the deceased parent’s house in the way “mom would have wanted” only to sell it.Ah, dealing with the stuff of the deceased, when the deceased wanted such and such to happen to the stuff.
I say: dear deceased, you should have taken care of that before you died, then. The burden you place on those left behind to do something complicated with your specialized crap is not cool.
There's nothing quite as toxic as "dead hand" behavior wherein a domineering elder tries to dictate and control an heir's behavior from beyond the grave, because the experience of pressuring, manipulating, and controlling that person during one's own lifetime somehow wasn't enough.
What's even worse is the way entire families play into it. "Yabbit, yabbit, Mom or Dad would have wanted it this other way (regardless of the cost and inconvenience to you, and with no cost or inconvenience to us whatsoever)."
AMEN! My mom redecorated her own house to sell. She had OLT (Old Lady Taste). The buyers ripped it all out. Related: I want to do minor updates NOW, so we can enjoy them and the house will be "recently updated" when we sell. DH is digging his heels in. Ugh.I know! It is so damn strange and frankly, unfathomable to me, when someone (I have known at LEAST 2 of these someones) renovated the deceased parent’s house in the way “mom would have wanted” only to sell it.Ah, dealing with the stuff of the deceased, when the deceased wanted such and such to happen to the stuff.
I say: dear deceased, you should have taken care of that before you died, then. The burden you place on those left behind to do something complicated with your specialized crap is not cool.
There's nothing quite as toxic as "dead hand" behavior wherein a domineering elder tries to dictate and control an heir's behavior from beyond the grave, because the experience of pressuring, manipulating, and controlling that person during one's own lifetime somehow wasn't enough.
What's even worse is the way entire families play into it. "Yabbit, yabbit, Mom or Dad would have wanted it this other way (regardless of the cost and inconvenience to you, and with no cost or inconvenience to us whatsoever)."
WHY????!!!
Believe me, as a potential buyer of mom’s house, I do not want some granny’s taste dictating the materials of the house I buy. I want to chose materials myself.
AMEN! My mom redecorated her own house to sell. She had OLT (Old Lady Taste). The buyers ripped it all out. Related: I want to do minor updates NOW, so we can enjoy them and the house will be "recently updated" when we sell. DH is digging his heels in. Ugh.
AMEN! My mom redecorated her own house to sell. She had OLT (Old Lady Taste). The buyers ripped it all out. Related: I want to do minor updates NOW, so we can enjoy them and the house will be "recently updated" when we sell. DH is digging his heels in. Ugh.
Do it now! I regret so much the times we thought about upgrades, put them off, then did them for selling a house.
I did finally learn my lesson, did upgrades in my last house for me that later helped sell it. But they were not fancy upgrades, they were basics, like a light over the kitchen sink*. If a new owner wanted a different light, at least the wiring was there. I had already done the work of getting the electrician in.
*Snark comment - why do builders think that having a window in front of the kitchen sink plus one overhead light is enough? It gets dark early here in winter and that part of the kitchen gets super dark.
AMEN! My mom redecorated her own house to sell. She had OLT (Old Lady Taste). The buyers ripped it all out. Related: I want to do minor updates NOW, so we can enjoy them and the house will be "recently updated" when we sell. DH is digging his heels in. Ugh.I know! It is so damn strange and frankly, unfathomable to me, when someone (I have known at LEAST 2 of these someones) renovated the deceased parent’s house in the way “mom would have wanted” only to sell it.Ah, dealing with the stuff of the deceased, when the deceased wanted such and such to happen to the stuff.
I say: dear deceased, you should have taken care of that before you died, then. The burden you place on those left behind to do something complicated with your specialized crap is not cool.
There's nothing quite as toxic as "dead hand" behavior wherein a domineering elder tries to dictate and control an heir's behavior from beyond the grave, because the experience of pressuring, manipulating, and controlling that person during one's own lifetime somehow wasn't enough.
What's even worse is the way entire families play into it. "Yabbit, yabbit, Mom or Dad would have wanted it this other way (regardless of the cost and inconvenience to you, and with no cost or inconvenience to us whatsoever)."
WHY????!!!
Believe me, as a potential buyer of mom’s house, I do not want some granny’s taste dictating the materials of the house I buy. I want to chose materials myself.
Splitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
QuoteSplitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
With 2 siblings, splitting everything 50/50 should not cause family strife. If one of the two thinks they "deserve more," then they need to get over themselves. Sheesh.
QuoteSplitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
With 2 siblings, splitting everything 50/50 should not cause family strife. If one of the two thinks they "deserve more," then they need to get over themselves. Sheesh.
Sure, works great for a bottle of scotch, but what does one do with half a watch, or half a stereo?
QuoteSplitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
With 2 siblings, splitting everything 50/50 should not cause family strife. If one of the two thinks they "deserve more," then they need to get over themselves. Sheesh.
Sure, works great for a bottle of scotch, but what does one do with half a watch, or half a stereo?
Either come to a distribution that feels fair (you get the watch and they get the stereo), or everything gets sold.
Seriously: If you care about the people who will deal with your detritus once you die - just go through it, winnow it down - and if you feel comfortable, start distributing items.
Hypothetical: dad is given an old airplane and starts refurbishing it. Sibling 1 works with dad on this project for years. Making parts at sibling's business, assembly, doing at least half the work. Sibling 2 occasionally visits but has no interest in the plane. Dad gets sick and can’t do much anymore. Sibling 1 continues to work on the plane and finishes it. Dad soon dies and leaves everything 50/50. There’s property, cash, and investments of $1m, and the plane. Plane is valued at $200k.QuoteSplitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
With 2 siblings, splitting everything 50/50 should not cause family strife. If one of the two thinks they "deserve more," then they need to get over themselves. Sheesh.
Hypothetical: dad is given an old airplane and starts refurbishing it. Sibling 1 works with dad on this project for years. Making parts at sibling's business, assembly, doing at least half the work. Sibling 2 occasionally visits but has no interest in the plane. Dad gets sick and can’t do much anymore. Sibling 1 continues to work on the plane and finishes it. Dad soon dies and leaves everything 50/50. There’s property, cash, and investments of $1m, and the plane. Plane is valued at $200k.QuoteSplitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
With 2 siblings, splitting everything 50/50 should not cause family strife. If one of the two thinks they "deserve more," then they need to get over themselves. Sheesh.
Siblings each get $500k (less estate costs) from the property, cash, and investments, that's clear. What about the plane?
Dad and sibling 1 didn't work it out ahead of time. It wasn't discussed.Hypothetical: dad is given an old airplane and starts refurbishing it. Sibling 1 works with dad on this project for years. Making parts at sibling's business, assembly, doing at least half the work. Sibling 2 occasionally visits but has no interest in the plane. Dad gets sick and can’t do much anymore. Sibling 1 continues to work on the plane and finishes it. Dad soon dies and leaves everything 50/50. There’s property, cash, and investments of $1m, and the plane. Plane is valued at $200k.QuoteSplitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
With 2 siblings, splitting everything 50/50 should not cause family strife. If one of the two thinks they "deserve more," then they need to get over themselves. Sheesh.
Siblings each get $500k (less estate costs) from the property, cash, and investments, that's clear. What about the plane?
Dad and sibling 1 should have worked that out ahead of time. It's not "not spliting 50/50, or unfair" to account for that. "Because Sib1 has put in time, effort, and expense on the plane, that shall be excluded from the 50/50 split. To account for their investment of time, Sib1 will get 75% of the proceeds on the plane if sold, and first right of refusal to buy out Sib2 as FMV before it is sold."
To me, that's not diverging from a 50/50 split any more than would be saying, "Sib2 borrowed $50k from the estate so the even split should take that into account before the split is calculated.
Again, dad should account for this stuff ahead of time and discuss if with both siblings, and record his solution in the will with specifics.
Seriously: If you care about the people who will deal with your detritus once you die - just go through it, winnow it down - and if you feel comfortable, start distributing items.
Financial side: Put beneficiaries on all of your accounts!
When my parents sold the house and downsized, they distributed a portion of the stuff (coin collection, some furniture) - which was good. Beneficiaries should all be in place.
Unfortunately, Dad was a pack rat and had been accumulating/hauling around boxes of... stuff... for over 30 years. Literally there were boxes I know were taped up in 1991, some are even older. He promised that in retirement he would sort through the stuff, but he never did. The only organization is the date stuff was packed in a box.
Dad died this spring. I've been primary on helping Mom deal with... everything.
Maybe 5% of stuff in the boxes is really cool/historical/milestone stuff. Maybe 10% is "Eh, okay - I could use it since it's here". Stuff like the blank notebooks. 85% is crap, some of which has PII for other people (name, birth date, SSN, etc) and really should be shredded. Mom is mostly pre-sorting/evaluating, I'm dealing with most of the disposal.
Realistically, I suspect it will be years before we finish going through it all. That's not even considering the boxes and boxes of family slides and photos that he was going to go through and get scanned.
Don't do this to your family. Go through your crap. Here's a method many people have suggested: https://www.thespruce.com/swedish-death-cleaning-4801461
So, the splitting of things:
My mom has two sisters. Their grandparents were all farmers. Parents were teachers (thanks, GI Bill). No one rich. But there was moderate drama over the stuff. The coin collection. The china, in particular. How do you divide two sets of china between 3 ladies? So much gnashing of teeth over these dishes. Multiple phone calls. Round and round. Who gets what? What is fair?
In the end, my Mom DNGAF and took a set of 6 from the one grandma who happened to have 18 plates, cups, saucers (cause, you know farmer-sized families back in the day.) That meant both of her sisters had "full" sets of 12, which they were adamant about. Uh huh. One sister had 2 kids and the other had one. Why you need 12 plates, cups, and saucers for that I have no idea.
My mom carefully stored the coveted china away and we never used it. Finally she gave it to my daughter, and I promptly accidentally broke one of the tea cups (whoops.) But there's this store called "Replacements." Guess what . . . ta da! Replacements had the pattern.
Did I have to look at a gazillion patterns that were almost-but-not-quite right to find it? Yes. Did I find it exactly? Yes. Do I now have another tea cup AND a matching gravy boat, sugar bowl, creamer, and serving platters? Totally dumb, but you know, it wasn't very much money at all. Turns out farmers in Idaho and Missouri did not exactly have Ming dynasty stuff. Lol, probably her sister, who was so adamant about having the set of 12, gave it to her now adult daughter who promptly sold it to Replacements only for me to buy it years later after it sat quietly in their inventory.
But, yeah, easier to split than a watch. Just let your sibling have the watch. Seriously.
Touche.So, the splitting of things:
My mom has two sisters. Their grandparents were all farmers. Parents were teachers (thanks, GI Bill). No one rich. But there was moderate drama over the stuff. The coin collection. The china, in particular. How do you divide two sets of china between 3 ladies? So much gnashing of teeth over these dishes. Multiple phone calls. Round and round. Who gets what? What is fair?
In the end, my Mom DNGAF and took a set of 6 from the one grandma who happened to have 18 plates, cups, saucers (cause, you know farmer-sized families back in the day.) That meant both of her sisters had "full" sets of 12, which they were adamant about. Uh huh. One sister had 2 kids and the other had one. Why you need 12 plates, cups, and saucers for that I have no idea.
My mom carefully stored the coveted china away and we never used it. Finally she gave it to my daughter, and I promptly accidentally broke one of the tea cups (whoops.) But there's this store called "Replacements." Guess what . . . ta da! Replacements had the pattern.
Did I have to look at a gazillion patterns that were almost-but-not-quite right to find it? Yes. Did I find it exactly? Yes. Do I now have another tea cup AND a matching gravy boat, sugar bowl, creamer, and serving platters? Totally dumb, but you know, it wasn't very much money at all. Turns out farmers in Idaho and Missouri did not exactly have Ming dynasty stuff. Lol, probably her sister, who was so adamant about having the set of 12, gave it to her now adult daughter who promptly sold it to Replacements only for me to buy it years later after it sat quietly in their inventory.
But, yeah, easier to split than a watch. Just let your sibling have the watch. Seriously.
Funny! And your family are rare birds indeed, to care about sets of China. No one cares about that anymore. I do not understand how Replacements stays in business, but it might well be for the situation you describe, people are trying to complete dead grandma’s sets of China to turn over to younger generations who Don’t give a damn about it.
Related: My mom told us to initial the things we wanted after they were gone. My sister shimmied under the relatively new, paid-for car, and put her initials on it. She made no secret of it, but it was understood to be a joke.
Once my parents died, my brother and I were co-executors. Parent's instructions were to divide the remaining assets evenly among the six of us. Black Sheep Sister (BSS) insisted that she was to get the car before the assets were distributed. She took the car immediately after my parents died, then had the nerve to call the police because other sister had "hidden" other jewelry. Other sister had indeed hidden the jewelry, but only to keep BSS from taking it. ARGH!
BSS hounded the shit out of my brother until he agreed to give her the car off the top. I have spoken to her only when necessary ever since. Mostly because I know she is a mooch and I'm done getting screwed over by her. The car business was the third time in our adult history...and I've learned my hard lessons.
Her last text to me was, "Do you still hate me?" A wee bit manipulative, dontcha think?
She doesn't attempt contact often, but keeps tabs on me through the family. The text came after a long silence. The question is very manipulative. It's like asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" There is no good answer. BSS merely said something shocking to elicit a response, therefore the only answer is no answer. All she wants from me is money, and that's not happening. BSS has always done exactly what she wants to do, at any cost. While my siblings have reestablished contact with her, only to have been taken advantage of by her yet again, I'm not going down that path.Related: My mom told us to initial the things we wanted after they were gone. My sister shimmied under the relatively new, paid-for car, and put her initials on it. She made no secret of it, but it was understood to be a joke.
Once my parents died, my brother and I were co-executors. Parent's instructions were to divide the remaining assets evenly among the six of us. Black Sheep Sister (BSS) insisted that she was to get the car before the assets were distributed. She took the car immediately after my parents died, then had the nerve to call the police because other sister had "hidden" other jewelry. Other sister had indeed hidden the jewelry, but only to keep BSS from taking it. ARGH!
BSS hounded the shit out of my brother until he agreed to give her the car off the top. I have spoken to her only when necessary ever since. Mostly because I know she is a mooch and I'm done getting screwed over by her. The car business was the third time in our adult history...and I've learned my hard lessons.
Her last text to me was, "Do you still hate me?" A wee bit manipulative, dontcha think?
Sometimes, I wonder what would happen if you just called her bluff and said, "Yes. You're being annoying."
Related: My mom told us to initial the things we wanted after they were gone. My sister shimmied under the relatively new, paid-for car, and put her initials on it. She made no secret of it, but it was understood to be a joke.
Once my parents died, my brother and I were co-executors. Parent's instructions were to divide the remaining assets evenly among the six of us. Black Sheep Sister (BSS) insisted that she was to get the car before the assets were distributed. She took the car immediately after my parents died, then had the nerve to call the police because other sister had "hidden" other jewelry. Other sister had indeed hidden the jewelry, but only to keep BSS from taking it. ARGH!
BSS hounded the shit out of my brother until he agreed to give her the car off the top. I have spoken to her only when necessary ever since. Mostly because I know she is a mooch and I'm done getting screwed over by her. The car business was the third time in our adult history...and I've learned my hard lessons.
Her last text to me was, "Do you still hate me?" A wee bit manipulative, dontcha think?
Nope. The response is what she wants. Not giving it to her.
Nope. The response is what she wants. Not giving it to her.
Nope. The response is what she wants. Not giving it to her.
Nope. The response is what she wants. Not giving it to her.
AMEN! My mom redecorated her own house to sell. She had OLT (Old Lady Taste). The buyers ripped it all out. Related: I want to do minor updates NOW, so we can enjoy them and the house will be "recently updated" when we sell. DH is digging his heels in. Ugh.
Do it now! I regret so much the times we thought about upgrades, put them off, then did them for selling a house.
I did finally learn my lesson, did upgrades in my last house for me that later helped sell it. But they were not fancy upgrades, they were basics, like a light over the kitchen sink*. If a new owner wanted a different light, at least the wiring was there. I had already done the work of getting the electrician in.
*Snark comment - why do builders think that having a window in front of the kitchen sink plus one overhead light is enough? It gets dark early here in winter and that part of the kitchen gets super dark.
Ugh, @saguaro, it sounds like your sister feels there is a family obligation to hang onto that stuff and, since no one else will take it, all that responsibility falls square on her shoulders. Of course, she then feels resentment that it all falls on her shoulders. The obligation is imagined. I think there is a lot more of this out there than we even realize.
Nope. The response is what she wants. Not giving it to her.
Exactly. My dad was a narcissist, and it drove him absolutely BONKERS that I wouldn't re-engage once I Dear John'd him....
To the point where my started sending postcards instead of letters (can't avoid reading them!). He also once sent a note to DH - urging him to get me back into communication and the dysfunctional dynamic - which just confirmed all the reasons I went No Contact.
As for the slides themselves, they will be tossed afterward, but you would be surprised how many people think I should hold onto them "just to be sure". For what?
Tell those people they are welcome to hold onto them themselves.
...there are amazing cast-iron pots and pans all over the place. I'll be thrilled to take, like, three. Perhaps 4: the tiny little ones would be great for heating up spices for indian dishes. ...Slightly off topic but if I understand your intended use properly, the downside with the very tiny pans for that ends up being that they take a good while to heat & cool for the few seconds the spices will be in the oil (this may be a feature rather than a bug somewhere colder than I am, provided you have the patience.) I got in the habit of using a small stainless steel saucepot for this - heats to a sear in less than a minute, very easy to scrape every last drop of spice-oil-paste back out again.
The little pans are, on the other hand, absolutely amazing for tiny pizzas, or tiny pies, or tiny lava cakes....
...there are amazing cast-iron pots and pans all over the place. I'll be thrilled to take, like, three. Perhaps 4: the tiny little ones would be great for heating up spices for indian dishes. ...Slightly off topic but if I understand your intended use properly, the downside with the very tiny pans for that ends up being that they take a good while to heat & cool for the few seconds the spices will be in the oil (this may be a feature rather than a bug somewhere colder than I am, provided you have the patience.) I got in the habit of using a small stainless steel saucepot for this - heats to a sear in less than a minute, very easy to scrape every last drop of spice-oil-paste back out again.
The little pans are, on the other hand, absolutely amazing for tiny pizzas, or tiny pies, or tiny lava cakes....
I'm not really interested in fixing the relationship with my mom, so this post is more of a venting than anything else.
I can add a complaint about inheritance! Just a whine, no solution sought.
Our $340,000 investment ( family farm) is returning $6,000 annually. How about that! Isn’t that 1.76% return great!!!
Not.
When I pointed this out to DH in my ever helpful way, mentioning for the hundredth time what a DUMB idea it is to hang onto this farm, he cheerfully acknowledged it. No problem in his mind.
Sigh.
Your mother is entitled to make her own decisions. Even if they're really bad or nonsensical ones. All you can do is make your peace that it's going to be a shitshow, and decide what level of involvement you're comfortable having in that shitshow.
It sucks. I'm sorry.
Your mother is entitled to make her own decisions. Even if they're really bad or nonsensical ones. All you can do is make your peace that it's going to be a shitshow, and decide what level of involvement you're comfortable having in that shitshow.
uniwelder, I also offer the idea that your brother may not be skating along with tons of your mom’s money (unless she a tually HAS tons). In my Midwestern experience with nursing homes, the not-great ones are not necessarily distinguished from the better ones by cost. And any Medicare bed your mother lands in would mean all of her assets are gone and there is a legally mandated “look back” period of several years to see where those assets went. Bro could owe the gubmnt lotsa money.
Your mother is entitled to make her own decisions. Even if they're really bad or nonsensical ones. All you can do is make your peace that it's going to be a shitshow, and decide what level of involvement you're comfortable having in that shitshow.
Yes, that's something I've been contemplating quite a bit. Part of me just wants to lose contact and stay away.uniwelder, I also offer the idea that your brother may not be skating along with tons of your mom’s money (unless she a tually HAS tons). In my Midwestern experience with nursing homes, the not-great ones are not necessarily distinguished from the better ones by cost. And any Medicare bed your mother lands in would mean all of her assets are gone and there is a legally mandated “look back” period of several years to see where those assets went. Bro could owe the gubmnt lotsa money.
Good point that I haven't thought about. However, I wouldn't be surprised if he opts to take care of her at home and she happens to pass away within a month.
uniwelder, it sounds like she's pretty detached from reality, especially since she says she wants you and your brother to make decisions "50/50," but you are not in communication with your brother. Even if that was in the documents, which it isn't, it isn't a viable plan. Like somehow she is going to force that relationship back together by being incapacitated and expecting the two of you to problem solve jointly on her behalf? Makes no sense, as you said.
It's difficult to have family members who are detached from reality and influenced heavily by people who we can clearly see don't have their best interests in mind. But, as others have said and you seem to already realize, there's pretty much nothing we can do about it.
uniwelder, it sounds like she's pretty detached from reality, especially since she says she wants you and your brother to make decisions "50/50," but you are not in communication with your brother. Even if that was in the documents, which it isn't, it isn't a viable plan. Like somehow she is going to force that relationship back together by being incapacitated and expecting the two of you to problem solve jointly on her behalf? Makes no sense, as you said.
It's difficult to have family members who are detached from reality and influenced heavily by people who we can clearly see don't have their best interests in mind. But, as others have said and you seem to already realize, there's pretty much nothing we can do about it.
My take away was slightly different. I sort of assumed she doesn't actually want Uni and Bro to make decisions 50/50, just like she doesn't actually think the trust document was simply a misplaced page from her husband's paperwork. She just doesn't have the courage to actually state her wishes and is just avoiding the conflict, pushing it onto her children to sort out when she's gone. It's hard to straight up tell your child, "I am giving control to your brother, not you." That's even more true when the bro has a history of irresponsibility and deep down the mom has some sense it may not be a fantastic idea. So instead of having the hard conversations, she avoids them by playing ignorant.
Maybe that's a misread of the situation, but it was how I read it.
There can be many reason why a parent makes the choices they do. My mom picked the least capable of three offspring to handle every part of her advanced care and estate. There are moments when I can tell she regrets her choice. She has twice told me she picked my youngest brother so he can learn about financial matters. Gee Mom, great idea.
Fortunately my youngest brother made our mother add me on as back up. Which was a good idea because he is a pilot and typically does transatlantic flight routes and can be unreachable for 4 day stretches.
alas she is no longer competent. In hindsight she probably was barely competent when she made the choice. And even now, there are only moments she has regret. Just as many moments that she expresses her satisfaction with her wisdom.There can be many reason why a parent makes the choices they do. My mom picked the least capable of three offspring to handle every part of her advanced care and estate. There are moments when I can tell she regrets her choice. She has twice told me she picked my youngest brother so he can learn about financial matters. Gee Mom, great idea.
Fortunately my youngest brother made our mother add me on as back up. Which was a good idea because he is a pilot and typically does transatlantic flight routes and can be unreachable for 4 day stretches.
If she regrets her choice, is still alive & competent, it’s not too late for her to change it…
AdrianC, what are the consequences if you don't meet the 3 month deadline (I'm not sure if you're 9 months past that deadline or still within it). Because if you're going to face real consequences, then it's reasonable to push. Even if your sibling doesn't want to.This. Plus, I kind of wonder if the solicitor earns more the longer it drags out.
AdrianC, what are the consequences if you don't meet the 3 month deadline (I'm not sure if you're 9 months past that deadline or still within it). Because if you're going to face real consequences, then it's reasonable to push. Even if your sibling doesn't want to.Sorry, maybe I wasn't very clear. Probate was applied for and then was granted 3 months ago. The grant of probate allows the executor to collect and distribute the assets according to the will, but there is no deadline on when this has to be done. There is the "executor's year" - the executor has a year after the death to distribute the assets - but if I understand correctly, it's more of a guide than a rule. Dragging it out does mean more billable hours for the solicitor, I'm sure.
AdrianC, what are the consequences if you don't meet the 3 month deadline (I'm not sure if you're 9 months past that deadline or still within it). Because if you're going to face real consequences, then it's reasonable to push. Even if your sibling doesn't want to.Sorry, maybe I wasn't very clear. Probate was applied for and then was granted 3 months ago. The grant of probate allows the executor to collect and distribute the assets according to the will, but there is no deadline on when this has to be done. There is the "executor's year" - the executor has a year after the death to distribute the assets - but if I understand correctly, it's more of a guide than a rule. Dragging it out does mean more billable hours for the solicitor, I'm sure.
I can add a complaint about inheritance! Just a whine, no solution sought.This seems to be the way they go. My parents are partners in a family farm (by inheritance) and their portion is worth a similar amount. They received a distribution of $3,800 last year.
Our $340,000 investment ( family farm) is returning $6,000 annually. How about that! Isn’t that 1.76% return great!!!
Not.
When I pointed this out to DH in my ever helpful way, mentioning for the hundredth time what a DUMB idea it is to hang onto this farm, he cheerfully acknowledged it. No problem in his mind.
Sigh.
I think I've been written out of my mother's will. We have a strained relationship...
...was surprised she would entrust handling of her affairs, potentially while incapacitated or in a nursing home, to my brother.
I don't intend to engage further with my mom about this. My aunt is very level headed and the person I have gone to for serious discussions. I wasn't about to involve her originally, but seeing how my mom doesn't understand what's going on, I thought it's worth having a conversation. My aunt can decide whether she wants to bring any of this up with my mom.
I agree with the others. In addition, your other next best option might be telling your mom about something your friend is going through. Note that this story is fictional and you can base it on what you're worried about.
A relative of mine hosted a bunch of family for thanksgiving, and is now >||< this close to cutting off a couple of teenage relatives due to their behavior towards her kids. We're talking bullying and sexual harassment to the point the kid hid for most of the day.
A relative of mine hosted a bunch of family for thanksgiving, and is now >||< this close to cutting off a couple of teenage relatives due to their behavior towards her kids. We're talking bullying and sexual harassment to the point the kid hid for most of the day.
What the actual fuck?
A relative of mine hosted a bunch of family for thanksgiving, and is now >||< this close to cutting off a couple of teenage relatives due to their behavior towards her kids. We're talking bullying and sexual harassment to the point the kid hid for most of the day.
What the actual fuck?
I hope she kicked those teenage relatives out of her house before dinner was served. Along with any other relatives who objected to the bullies being kicked out.
My cousin was a mentally unstable predator. After dinner on every holiday my other cousins, my sisters and myself all had to hang out together with him. We stayed as far away as possible and never let him near any of our children. Parents see what they want to see.A relative of mine hosted a bunch of family for thanksgiving, and is now >||< this close to cutting off a couple of teenage relatives due to their behavior towards her kids. We're talking bullying and sexual harassment to the point the kid hid for most of the day.
What the actual fuck?
I hope she kicked those teenage relatives out of her house before dinner was served. Along with any other relatives who objected to the bullies being kicked out.
If she knew about it at the time. Most likely she found out about it after the fact. Bullies are *very* good at noticing when possible protectors are otherwise occupied. Sending younger kids away "to play together" while the food preparation and cleanup are underway is very common.
But hey, some people just have to learn the hard way.
Here's a UK law concept I just came across: "proprietary estoppel"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_estoppel
"Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if
- someone is given a clear assurance that they will acquire a right over property,
- they reasonably rely on the assurance,
- they act substantially to their detriment on the strength of the assurance, and
- it would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance.
If these elements of assurance, reliance and detriment, and unconscionability are present, the usual remedy will be that the property will be transferred to the claimant, if the court views the reliance to warrant a claim in all the circumstances."
Example would be a farmer promises his son "all this will be yours" and son works for starvation wages for decades on that promise. Farmer dies with no will, farm has to be shared amongst the son and siblings. Son may have a claim using "proprietary estoppel".
@AdrianC or others - Is there any US equivalent law or precedent to this? I know of a case where rather than being divided among the family, such a property is being claimed by a different relative entirely. Due to being a sole caretaker, forgoing education & career for so long they have no information or any funds to begin to pursue legal defense.Here's a UK law concept I just came across: "proprietary estoppel"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_estoppel
"Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if
- someone is given a clear assurance that they will acquire a right over property,
- they reasonably rely on the assurance,
- they act substantially to their detriment on the strength of the assurance, and
- it would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance.
If these elements of assurance, reliance and detriment, and unconscionability are present, the usual remedy will be that the property will be transferred to the claimant, if the court views the reliance to warrant a claim in all the circumstances."
Example would be a farmer promises his son "all this will be yours" and son works for starvation wages for decades on that promise. Farmer dies with no will, farm has to be shared amongst the son and siblings. Son may have a claim using "proprietary estoppel".
Another example: one of the adult children remains at home with Mom or Dad as they age, providing yard and house care and then caregiving to people whose health and sanity are declining. This adult child foregoes education and career, putting his or her sole effort into caregiving and freeing up all the other adult siblings to have their own lives and to find marriage partners, etc. In exchange the parent(s) promise to leave the adult child the house. Then the last parent dies intestate or writes a will that divides the property evenly among all the siblings.
@AdrianC or others - Is there any US equivalent law or precedent to this? I know of a case where rather than being divided among the family, such a property is being claimed by a different relative entirely. Due to being a sole caretaker, forgoing education & career for so long they have no information or any funds to begin to pursue legal defense.Here's a UK law concept I just came across: "proprietary estoppel"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_estoppel
"Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if
- someone is given a clear assurance that they will acquire a right over property,
- they reasonably rely on the assurance,
- they act substantially to their detriment on the strength of the assurance, and
- it would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance.
If these elements of assurance, reliance and detriment, and unconscionability are present, the usual remedy will be that the property will be transferred to the claimant, if the court views the reliance to warrant a claim in all the circumstances."
Example would be a farmer promises his son "all this will be yours" and son works for starvation wages for decades on that promise. Farmer dies with no will, farm has to be shared amongst the son and siblings. Son may have a claim using "proprietary estoppel".
Another example: one of the adult children remains at home with Mom or Dad as they age, providing yard and house care and then caregiving to people whose health and sanity are declining. This adult child foregoes education and career, putting his or her sole effort into caregiving and freeing up all the other adult siblings to have their own lives and to find marriage partners, etc. In exchange the parent(s) promise to leave the adult child the house. Then the last parent dies intestate or writes a will that divides the property evenly among all the siblings.
@AdrianC or others - Is there any US equivalent law or precedent to this? I know of a case where rather than being divided among the family, such a property is being claimed by a different relative entirely. Due to being a sole caretaker, forgoing education & career for so long they have no information or any funds to begin to pursue legal defense.What Captain Fire wrote is the extent of my US knowledge.
@AdrianC or others - Is there any US equivalent law or precedent to this? I know of a case where rather than being divided among the family, such a property is being claimed by a different relative entirely. Due to being a sole caretaker, forgoing education & career for so long they have no information or any funds to begin to pursue legal defense.What Captain Fire wrote is the extent of my US knowledge.
My own case is in the UK and is somewhat similar to the "all this will be yours" scenario, with my younger brother being the son that stayed at home, me being the prodigal child.
We have an agreement in our case, just need the lawyer to actually do their job so we can finally get it done. 13 months and counting.
Jarndyce 2.0? I'm so sorry.Thanks for that. Had to look it up and I learned something.
My mother-in-law passed away in the fall. She had 4 children, 2 boys and 2 girls, one of whom is my wife.
We all dreaded whether the batshit-cray-cray narcissistic other sister was going to show up for the funeral and pull the drama-queen stunts she did for her father's funeral.
So much so that her 3 siblings seriously debated not telling her about the funeral until after it was over. These are nice people but they've been pushed and pushed into that solid a dislike of their sister over the last 50+ years.
In the end, they told her and, probably not having any money to make the trip, she chose not to come. I'm sure one of them would have paid for her to come if she had asked even vaguely nicely. Can't say they were sad about her absence.
So, we've long expected the sister would be a total horse's ass about the will and the distribution of assets. The first part of the assets were under accounts that had account beneficiaries with set percentages. So the companies just do it, period, with no one really getting much (if any) of a say otherwise.
There's just one investment account remaining that has not yet been distributed. Apparently, it's going by the will, not set beneficiaries. It's supposed to be divided equally into 4 parts. Should be easy, right?
Well, I would like to say the sister has behaved admirably, but it would be more accurate to state she has performed as expected.
This is my 3rd hand understanding of what's going on.
The sister, we'll call her "Judy", is refusing to sign the papers that would cause these funds to be disbursed. First, she explained she had converted to become a Jew and wouldn't sign any papers her rabbi didn't approve of. Now she's saying that she was "dad's favourite" and because of that, she should get 100% of this money. I've suggested we explain to her she might or might not have been "dad's favourite", but dad gave all his money to her mother, his wife, and not her. And clearly, whether or not she was "mom's favourite," mom chose to divide the money equally.
Now, personally, I think that Judaism gets a bad rap by all the bigots out there, so let's be clear the religion we're really discussing is Judyism.
And, to be fair, it's important to know that, as far as we could tell, she used to be a member of some religion of the month club. She would latch onto some religious skeaze who said things she liked and loudly "join" that religion, i.e., spout its BS until she found someone else's BS she liked better. My personal fave was a preacher out in California who preached that if you did something and you felt good about it, that was God's way of telling you it was the right thing to do. Boy, howdy, did "Judy" latch onto that doctrine. Jeffrey Daumer, that serial murderer who killed, dismembered and ate 17 young men (that we know of) could follow that doctrine and like it. But I digress.
Anyway, the funny thing is that of the 4 siblings, she is the only one who's not financially well off. Two of the siblings could hand this money - estimated at $150,000 - to the nearest wino stumbling by and it wouldn't affect their finances one whit. (My wife is one of them.) The other would **wants** the money but doesn't **need** the money. She, on the other hand, does need it, unless she's found a sugar daddy.
Now, I don't know, but I guess that she's already blown thru the sizeable chunk of money that's already been disbursed. Time will tell on that. I would be surprised if she hadn't.
At some point, the executor of the will will get tired of pissing around with her and point out a few obvious points. 1st, the executor gets paid for their time and trouble, and the more trouble she makes, the more they'll end up getting paid. Since the executor is one of the brother's wives, she'll just be transferring more of her share to one of her brothers with her antics. And since they were planning on doing the work without getting paid, as a courtesy to their siblings, it will come with a nice price tag. They can then keep that fee for themselves (the rest of us are JUST FINE with that, or if "Judy" really pisses them off, they'll divide it into 3 parts and divvy it up between "Judy's" two brothers and sister. And take "Judy" to court over it, the judge will divide the assets according to the will, and "Judy" will pay EVERYONE'S legal expenses. Since one of the brothers is a lawyer, he could accept that money (the two reasonable siblings are JUST FINE by that) or he can divvy it up into three parts and give everyone but "Judy" their portion. In other words, THANKS FOR BEING AN ASS THIS TIME, because it's the first time she's ever been an ASS in a way that's benefitted her other family members!
But hey, some people just have to learn the hard way.
It remains to be seen whether she is one of them.
So, apparently whomever my SIL is trusting to give her advice has convinced her that signing the papers
and splitting everything equally in 4 parts is her best option.
My money is on said advisor being a religious leader who has their eye on a to-be-promptly-received sizeable donation. It would be par for the course.
Of course, we'll probably never know 'cause my wife wants nothing to do with her.
You bet! Less hassle and more money. I don't wish my SIL ill, I just wish she would either turn into a person worth knowing by her siblings or never deal with her again.So, apparently whomever my SIL is trusting to give her advice has convinced her that signing the papers
and splitting everything equally in 4 parts is her best option.
My money is on said advisor being a religious leader who has their eye on a to-be-promptly-received sizeable donation. It would be par for the course.
Of course, we'll probably never know 'cause my wife wants nothing to do with her.
To the first sentence: Yay!
To the second sentence: Meh. If Judy's going to blow through the money anyway with nothing to show for it, maybe some of it will go to do good if it gets donated?Not likely. My favorite of the preachers she tried to get the family to support was out west. The catch phrase for this sect was on the lines of "If it feels good to you, that's God's way of telling you it's the right thing to do."
To the third sentence: My sympathy to your wife, on this situation and on the deaths of her parents.Thanks.
Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
You and Jim Jones although it ultimately didn't work out for him.
Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
You and Jim Jones although it ultimately didn't work out for him.
Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
You and Jim Jones although it ultimately didn't work out for him.
Hey now, the stupid joke thread is thataway (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/tell-me-your-stupid-jokes/)!Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
You and Jim Jones although it ultimately didn't work out for him.
Don't knock Jim Jones!
In addition to being a preacher, he was the world's finest boxer.
He killed 909 people with just one punch.
Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
You and Jim Jones although it ultimately didn't work out for him.
Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!
Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!
Nothing, but that's not where the reference came from. If you're not sure, Google "Jonestown."Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!
What’s wrong with the Tom Wolfe book? We might actually be a band of Merry Pranksters right here.
Wow. I knew of Jonestown and the origins of the "drank the kool-aid" reference but I never read about the incident itself. 909 people?! How incredibly sad.Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
You and Jim Jones although it ultimately didn't work out for him.
Don't knock Jim Jones!
In addition to being a preacher, he was the world's finest boxer.
He killed 909 people with just one punch.
Nothing, but that's not where the reference came from. If you're not sure, Google "Jonestown."Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!
What’s wrong with the Tom Wolfe book? We might actually be a band of Merry Pranksters right here.
...and now in the workplace it has yet another meaning. ...Does it? I was always aware of Jonestown & took it as very grim humor about what submitting to bosses & the workplace does to one's soul, I figured others understood the reference also. But apparently based on this conversation, that's perhaps not the case.
...and now in the workplace it has yet another meaning. ...Does it? I was always aware of Jonestown & took it as very grim humor about what submitting to bosses & the workplace does to one's soul, I figured others understood the reference also. But apparently based on this conversation, that's perhaps not the case.
...and now in the workplace it has yet another meaning. ...Does it? I was always aware of Jonestown & took it as very grim humor about what submitting to bosses & the workplace does to one's soul, I figured others understood the reference also. But apparently based on this conversation, that's perhaps not the case.
I kept hearing it used in my field as a substitute for "someone's really on board" or "everybody needs to get on board", which totally pissed me off. Reason 9,768 to FIRE....and now in the workplace it has yet another meaning. ...Does it? I was always aware of Jonestown & took it as very grim humor about what submitting to bosses & the workplace does to one's soul, I figured others understood the reference also. But apparently based on this conversation, that's perhaps not the case.
I never applied it to just a workplace, but always knew the reference and understood the idiom to mean blind adherence and loyalty to leadership or people with authority or influence. (IOW, it doesn't have to be just a boss. Someone could "drink the kool-aid" by following the ridiculous or dangerous guidance of a social media influencer, for example.
While it's a bit dark, it seems entirely in line with the actual incident and makes perfect sense as an expression.
My husband did a deed of variation (I think????) so that his inheritance passed straight to his brother but in that case there was a will so guessing that was more straightforward?Jarndyce 2.0? I'm so sorry.Thanks for that. Had to look it up and I learned something.
We're not there...but I do wonder what the lawyer fees will be in the end. There is no litigation, just normal, everyday probate work. Why it should take so long is a mystery to me.
But has anyone got any inheritance stories?
I recently told my dad to give everything to my sister since she could use it more. He's altering his will. No drama.
...and now in the workplace it has yet another meaning. ...Does it? I was always aware of Jonestown & took it as very grim humor about what submitting to bosses & the workplace does to one's soul, I figured others understood the reference also. But apparently based on this conversation, that's perhaps not the case.
I never applied it to just a workplace, but always knew the reference and understood the idiom to mean blind adherence and loyalty to leadership or people with authority or influence. (IOW, it doesn't have to be just a boss. Someone could "drink the kool-aid" by following the ridiculous or dangerous guidance of a social media influencer, for example.
While it's a bit dark, it seems entirely in line with the actual incident and makes perfect sense as an expression.
My mother's reading comprehension generally leaves something to be desired, and she apparently is freaking out because Grandpa's will says (1) that my aunt is the executor, but she passed away a few years ago, and (2) that grandpa's assets will be divided among his remaining living children.
I've never seen this will, but I've seen a few other wills, and they always have a provision for what to do if the executor is unavailable, and also something about the shares of children who predecease the parent flowing down to the children's heirs. This happened when my mom's maternal grandmother died; since her mother predeceased her grandma, she and her siblings split their mom's portion. It's not an emergency. My cousins aren't disinherited.
Or it’s intentional. Common ways to divide an inheritance:
- per stripes (divides at first generation always regardless if everyone there is dead, and deceased share goes to their kids)
- per capita at each generation (split at equal shares for each living generation. If three kids, two deceased, sibling gets 1/3, and kids of deceased siblings split equally regardless of if one sibling had 4 kids and the other 1 kid).
- per capital with representation (divide at first generation with someone living, then down the bloodline sharing the amount their ancestor would have taken). A blend of the above two.
Or maybe your mom's reading comprehension is just fine, and it's a poorly written will.
Or it’s intentional. Common ways to divide an inheritance:
- per stripes (divides at first generation always regardless if everyone there is dead, and deceased share goes to their kids)
- per capita at each generation (split at equal shares for each living generation. If three kids, two deceased, sibling gets 1/3, and kids of deceased siblings split equally regardless of if one sibling had 4 kids and the other 1 kid).
- per capital with representation (divide at first generation with someone living, then down the bloodline sharing the amount their ancestor would have taken). A blend of the above two.
Or there's the Old Family Way: split evenly among adult offspring, and if one of them predeceases the testators, require that the deceased adult kid's share be redistributed among the surviving adult offspring, intentionally disinheriting the adult child's children or heirs. This occurs when the adult child in question is a female (i.e. married into someone else's family) or had children through adoption or any other method besides the traditional straight way.
Give them a hug for being such wonderfully nice people.
My grandmother did this, and wound up disinheriting my cousin after her father died before his Mum. Siblings and I offered to split our shares to ensure she was covered, but my parent and her other sibling with means decided to cover it out of their shares and never mention it to the disinherited cousin. It would likely break her heart and ruin the memory of our grandmother if she were to find out.
My mother-in-law passed away in the fall. She had 4 children, 2 boys and 2 girls, one of whom is my wife.
We all dreaded whether the batshit-cray-cray narcissistic other sister was going to show up for the funeral and pull the drama-queen stunts she did for her father's funeral.
So much so that her 3 siblings seriously debated not telling her about the funeral until after it was over. These are nice people but they've been pushed and pushed into that solid a dislike of their sister over the last 50+ years.
In the end, they told her and, probably not having any money to make the trip, she chose not to come. I'm sure one of them would have paid for her to come if she had asked even vaguely nicely. Can't say they were sad about her absence.
So, we've long expected the sister would be a total horse's ass about the will and the distribution of assets. The first part of the assets were under accounts that had account beneficiaries with set percentages. So the companies just do it, period, with no one really getting much (if any) of a say otherwise.
There's just one investment account remaining that has not yet been distributed. Apparently, it's going by the will, not set beneficiaries. It's supposed to be divided equally into 4 parts. Should be easy, right?
Well, I would like to say the sister has behaved admirably, but it would be more accurate to state she has performed as expected.
This is my 3rd hand understanding of what's going on.
The sister, we'll call her "Judy", is refusing to sign the papers that would cause these funds to be disbursed. First, she explained she had converted to become a Jew and wouldn't sign any papers her rabbi didn't approve of. Now she's saying that she was "dad's favourite" and because of that, she should get 100% of this money. I've suggested we explain to her she might or might not have been "dad's favourite", but dad gave all his money to her mother, his wife, and not her. And clearly, whether or not she was "mom's favourite," mom chose to divide the money equally.
Now, personally, I think that Judaism gets a bad rap by all the bigots out there, so let's be clear the religion we're really discussing is Judyism.
And, to be fair, it's important to know that, as far as we could tell, she used to be a member of some religion of the month club. She would latch onto some religious skeaze who said things she liked and loudly "join" that religion, i.e., spout its BS until she found someone else's BS she liked better. My personal fave was a preacher out in California who preached that if you did something and you felt good about it, that was God's way of telling you it was the right thing to do. Boy, howdy, did "Judy" latch onto that doctrine. Jeffrey Daumer, that serial murderer who killed, dismembered and ate 17 young men (that we know of) could follow that doctrine and like it. But I digress.
Anyway, the funny thing is that of the 4 siblings, she is the only one who's not financially well off. Two of the siblings could hand this money - estimated at $150,000 - to the nearest wino stumbling by and it wouldn't affect their finances one whit. (My wife is one of them.) The other **wants** the money but doesn't **need** the money. She, on the other hand, does need it, unless she's found a sugar daddy.
Now, I don't know, but I guess that she's already blown thru the sizeable chunk of money that's already been disbursed. Time will tell on that. I would be surprised if she hadn't.
At some point, the executor of the will will get tired of pissing around with her and point out a few obvious points. 1st, the executor gets paid for their time and trouble, and the more trouble she makes, the more they'll end up getting paid. Since the executor is one of the brother's wives, she'll just be transferring more of her share to one of her brothers with her antics. And since they were planning on doing the work without getting paid, as a courtesy to their siblings, it will come with a nice price tag. They can then keep that fee for themselves (the rest of us are JUST FINE with that, or if "Judy" really pisses them off, they'll divide it into 3 parts and divvy it up between "Judy's" two brothers and sister. And take "Judy" to court over it, the judge will divide the assets according to the will, and "Judy" will pay EVERYONE'S legal expenses. Since one of the brothers is a lawyer, he could accept that money (the two reasonable siblings are JUST FINE by that) or he can divvy it up into three parts and give everyone but "Judy" their portion. In other words, THANKS FOR BEING AN ASS THIS TIME, because it's the first time she's ever been an ASS in a way that's benefitted her other family members!
But hey, some people just have to learn the hard way.
It remains to be seen whether she is one of them.
So, apparently whomever my SIL is trusting to give her advice has convinced her that signing the papers
and splitting everything equally in 4 parts is her best option.
My money is on said advisor being a religious leader who has their eye on a to-be-promptly-received sizeable donation. It would be par for the course.
Of course, we'll probably never know 'cause my wife wants nothing to do with her.
DW's uncle is a character who has consistently shown his ego and his willingness to do anything for attention and resources.
About 20 years ago, the house he lived in burned down, and he received a very large insurance payout for the SF home. He talked about how grateful he was to be alive, reveling in the attention, and about how he had "luckily" removed everything of value just days before and had boarded his animals when it happened. The majority of the family still thinks it was intentional.
About 10 years ago, he started a nonprofit dedicated to equal rights for a particular cross-section of marginalized peoples. He went on a slew of speaking engagements, often making the conversation about himself, and receiving numerous donations (including a rather large one from the founder of ebay). After winning "person of the year" from organizations that also support this movement, he was promptly removed as the leader of the non-profit because $50k had seemingly disappeared and he was the only person with access to it.
In the time since, he has entered into multiple frivolous lawsuits, typically suing the city in which he lives, seeking millions of dollars in damages. He tried unsuccessfully to get ppp loans during COVID for a business that has never made any money and only employs him. He constantly tried to pull me into his business ideas, which I won't touch with a ten foot pole.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago, when DW's grandma passed away (after three months in hospice at the age of 93). As the family has been going through the estate (that has almost nothing in it), they have found so far that:
- Uncle is an authorized user on all of her accounts, and has sent transfers to his accounts over a dozen times
- Uncle is on the title of her car, and is currently using it as collateral on a loan he has
- Uncle called DW's mom the day Grandma died to ask if Mom wanted to go to dinner because he "found $80 in their mom's wallet"
- Uncle had already removed countless items from the house without speaking to anyone
- Uncle wrote and published an obituary, about which he spoke with no one, and the whole thing is about him (and how he cared for her throughout her late struggles) -- he moved into her basement and lived there for free over the past decade or so while he took advantage of her
- Uncle suddenly found her will, for which he is the executor
As an outsider, I have found the entire thing fairly amusing, because I've known the man for 13 years, and predicted something like this was likely to happen. I've told DW multiple times over the past two weeks that it baffles me that people will fight over almost nothing (there's no house, no financial assets, one car, and a few things in the house). I witnessed a fight over a set of cups, about which Uncle said over and over: "these are collector's items; they're going for $40 apiece right now."
Shit be crazy, as they say.
DW's uncle is a character who has consistently shown his ego and his willingness to do anything for attention and resources.
About 20 years ago, the house he lived in burned down, and he received a very large insurance payout for the SF home. He talked about how grateful he was to be alive, reveling in the attention, and about how he had "luckily" removed everything of value just days before and had boarded his animals when it happened. The majority of the family still thinks it was intentional.
About 10 years ago, he started a nonprofit dedicated to equal rights for a particular cross-section of marginalized peoples. He went on a slew of speaking engagements, often making the conversation about himself, and receiving numerous donations (including a rather large one from the founder of ebay). After winning "person of the year" from organizations that also support this movement, he was promptly removed as the leader of the non-profit because $50k had seemingly disappeared and he was the only person with access to it.
In the time since, he has entered into multiple frivolous lawsuits, typically suing the city in which he lives, seeking millions of dollars in damages. He tried unsuccessfully to get ppp loans during COVID for a business that has never made any money and only employs him. He constantly tried to pull me into his business ideas, which I won't touch with a ten foot pole.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago, when DW's grandma passed away (after three months in hospice at the age of 93). As the family has been going through the estate (that has almost nothing in it), they have found so far that:
- Uncle is an authorized user on all of her accounts, and has sent transfers to his accounts over a dozen times
- Uncle is on the title of her car, and is currently using it as collateral on a loan he has
- Uncle called DW's mom the day Grandma died to ask if Mom wanted to go to dinner because he "found $80 in their mom's wallet"
- Uncle had already removed countless items from the house without speaking to anyone
- Uncle wrote and published an obituary, about which he spoke with no one, and the whole thing is about him (and how he cared for her throughout her late struggles) -- he moved into her basement and lived there for free over the past decade or so while he took advantage of her
- Uncle suddenly found her will, for which he is the executor
As an outsider, I have found the entire thing fairly amusing, because I've known the man for 13 years, and predicted something like this was likely to happen. I've told DW multiple times over the past two weeks that it baffles me that people will fight over almost nothing (there's no house, no financial assets, one car, and a few things in the house). I witnessed a fight over a set of cups, about which Uncle said over and over: "these are collector's items; they're going for $40 apiece right now."
Shit be crazy, as they say.
For those that can't get enough inheritance storys, there is a new series on Netflix called "The Gentleman" that plot sets up in E1 t the reading of a will in a dysfunctional family. Its a Guy Richie work so fair warning - ITS VIOLENT- but I found the story line to be a very clever one involving gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious types.I almost watched it today, but I really wanted to take a nap, so I watched a Christmas Romance instead, thinking I'd fall asleep. Alas, it was surprisingly entertaining, so no nap. I figured I'd have to be on my toes to follow a Guy Ritchie plot. Thanks for the confirmation.
Are you talking about “a Christmas vintage? “ That was shot in my hometown. It is available on Prime.For those that can't get enough inheritance storys, there is a new series on Netflix called "The Gentleman" that plot sets up in E1 t the reading of a will in a dysfunctional family. Its a Guy Richie work so fair warning - ITS VIOLENT- but I found the story line to be a very clever one involving gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious types.I almost watched it today, but I really wanted to take a nap, so I watched a Christmas Romance instead, thinking I'd fall asleep. Alas, it was surprisingly entertaining, so no nap. I figured I'd have to be on my toes to follow a Guy Ritchie plot. Thanks for the confirmation.
P.S. I'm no pro at these holiday romances. I think it was called "Christmas in the Vineyards" or some such.
It was called "Holiday in the Vineyards. It sure looked like California to me. Not a Victorian in sight.Are you talking about “a Christmas vintage? “ That was shot in my hometown. It is available on Prime.For those that can't get enough inheritance storys, there is a new series on Netflix called "The Gentleman" that plot sets up in E1 t the reading of a will in a dysfunctional family. Its a Guy Richie work so fair warning - ITS VIOLENT- but I found the story line to be a very clever one involving gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious types.I almost watched it today, but I really wanted to take a nap, so I watched a Christmas Romance instead, thinking I'd fall asleep. Alas, it was surprisingly entertaining, so no nap. I figured I'd have to be on my toes to follow a Guy Ritchie plot. Thanks for the confirmation.
P.S. I'm no pro at these holiday romances. I think it was called "Christmas in the Vineyards" or some such.
DH watched it in our Old downtown movie theater when they showed it to us locals. There was audience participation with everyone saying out loud things like “ oh, there’s my house! “Or “there’s Sarah standing in that crowd “and etc.
I watched it on streaming so that I can fast-forward through most of it. I only wanted to see the scenery. My hometown has 13 wineries and so old Victorian winery buildings are a prominent part of our architecture.
It was called "Holiday in the Vineyards. It sure looked like California to me. Not a Victorian in sight.Are you talking about “a Christmas vintage? “ That was shot in my hometown. It is available on Prime.For those that can't get enough inheritance storys, there is a new series on Netflix called "The Gentleman" that plot sets up in E1 t the reading of a will in a dysfunctional family. Its a Guy Richie work so fair warning - ITS VIOLENT- but I found the story line to be a very clever one involving gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious types.I almost watched it today, but I really wanted to take a nap, so I watched a Christmas Romance instead, thinking I'd fall asleep. Alas, it was surprisingly entertaining, so no nap. I figured I'd have to be on my toes to follow a Guy Ritchie plot. Thanks for the confirmation.
P.S. I'm no pro at these holiday romances. I think it was called "Christmas in the Vineyards" or some such.
DH watched it in our Old downtown movie theater when they showed it to us locals. There was audience participation with everyone saying out loud things like “ oh, there’s my house! “Or “there’s Sarah standing in that crowd “and etc.
I watched it on streaming so that I can fast-forward through most of it. I only wanted to see the scenery. My hometown has 13 wineries and so old Victorian winery buildings are a prominent part of our architecture.
It was called "Holiday in the Vineyards. It sure looked like California to me. Not a Victorian in sight.Are you talking about “a Christmas vintage? “ That was shot in my hometown. It is available on Prime.For those that can't get enough inheritance storys, there is a new series on Netflix called "The Gentleman" that plot sets up in E1 t the reading of a will in a dysfunctional family. Its a Guy Richie work so fair warning - ITS VIOLENT- but I found the story line to be a very clever one involving gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious types.I almost watched it today, but I really wanted to take a nap, so I watched a Christmas Romance instead, thinking I'd fall asleep. Alas, it was surprisingly entertaining, so no nap. I figured I'd have to be on my toes to follow a Guy Ritchie plot. Thanks for the confirmation.
P.S. I'm no pro at these holiday romances. I think it was called "Christmas in the Vineyards" or some such.
DH watched it in our Old downtown movie theater when they showed it to us locals. There was audience participation with everyone saying out loud things like “ oh, there’s my house! “Or “there’s Sarah standing in that crowd “and etc.
I watched it on streaming so that I can fast-forward through most of it. I only wanted to see the scenery. My hometown has 13 wineries and so old Victorian winery buildings are a prominent part of our architecture.
Oh, ok. I didnt find the film you watched but there are several on Prime with the words “Holiday, Christmas, Vintage, Winery” so that must be a sub genre of romance films.
I do not recommend the one shot in my home town. Not watchable, really.
It was called "Holiday in the Vineyards. It sure looked like California to me. Not a Victorian in sight.Are you talking about “a Christmas vintage? “ That was shot in my hometown. It is available on Prime.For those that can't get enough inheritance storys, there is a new series on Netflix called "The Gentleman" that plot sets up in E1 t the reading of a will in a dysfunctional family. Its a Guy Richie work so fair warning - ITS VIOLENT- but I found the story line to be a very clever one involving gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious types.I almost watched it today, but I really wanted to take a nap, so I watched a Christmas Romance instead, thinking I'd fall asleep. Alas, it was surprisingly entertaining, so no nap. I figured I'd have to be on my toes to follow a Guy Ritchie plot. Thanks for the confirmation.
P.S. I'm no pro at these holiday romances. I think it was called "Christmas in the Vineyards" or some such.
DH watched it in our Old downtown movie theater when they showed it to us locals. There was audience participation with everyone saying out loud things like “ oh, there’s my house! “Or “there’s Sarah standing in that crowd “and etc.
I watched it on streaming so that I can fast-forward through most of it. I only wanted to see the scenery. My hometown has 13 wineries and so old Victorian winery buildings are a prominent part of our architecture.
Oh, ok. I didnt find the film you watched but there are several on Prime with the words “Holiday, Christmas, Vintage, Winery” so that must be a sub genre of romance films.
I do not recommend the one shot in my home town. Not watchable, really.
iris lily, I tried to watch "A Christmas Vintage" over the weekend after seeing the comments here. Tried is the key word. After about 10 minutes, I turned it off and removed it from my watchlist. I'm sure the scenary was nice but since I live in a victorian town in the middle of wine country, it isn't anything I don't see on a regular basis.
Congratulations on not getting yourself into the mess your brother is currently in.. My sister complained that, she can't leave mom bc she might fall. So I got a guardian alert thing, paid for a year up front. No change to sisters work habits. Even mom says she can be left alone...I also find it extremely frustrating, that much if not all of Mom's medical issues are from, poor diet (she basically wants to live off desserts) no exercise, and taking her medications apparently at random. It is not my sister's fault (she is more patient than I). Just that, sister also not working just puts more stress on my brother, and guilt on my mom for no benefit other than sister being able to claim martyr status. I don't care if I get a cut. But I feel that my brother has been screwed in this situation.
Congratulations on not getting yourself into the mess your brother is currently in.. My sister complained that, she can't leave mom bc she might fall. So I got a guardian alert thing, paid for a year up front. No change to sisters work habits. Even mom says she can be left alone...I also find it extremely frustrating, that much if not all of Mom's medical issues are from, poor diet (she basically wants to live off desserts) no exercise, and taking her medications apparently at random. It is not my sister's fault (she is more patient than I). Just that, sister also not working just puts more stress on my brother, and guilt on my mom for no benefit other than sister being able to claim martyr status. I don't care if I get a cut. But I feel that my brother has been screwed in this situation.
Thanks for sharing the posts. Don't really have anything to add. My situation is, my brother (who is the homeowner) has my sister and Mom living there for free. Basically, he is supporting them. My mom pays for groceries for her and my sister, maybe a couple bills? Sis works limited hours that is pocket change and contributes 0 money to household, for years. She does help mom with groc shopping and meals (but again is paid that way including cig purchases) mom has needed increased help in past year and a half, but sisters lack of work and financial dep very much predates that. My sister now says, when mom dies she should get 100% of inheritance. She works extremely limited hours. I am unclear whether she is even eligible for social sec, and if so how much, due to work history. I feel and have told her, she should really focus on working more so she is eligible for social sec. My brother is also fed up w the situation.
In the end, it’s none of my business, and I’ll keep my mouth shut, but it’s a good reminder to me to not be a miser. Resources like these are something to do good with, whatever that good is to you and the people closest to you.
DW’s grandmother passed away recently at 99, almost 100. Grandpa died several years ago. After lifetime of careful saving and low consumption, she is leaving a sizeable chunk of the money. It looks like it will be split 50/50 between FIL and his brother, avoiding drama that we thought might happen there. FIL and MIL have also been careful savers and consumers, so this money will bump up their net worth, but not change their lives - they don’t even spend what they could now.
The drama part (and it’s not really that dramatic) is that they’re probably going to hand the money to their obnoxious (we went to school together) financial advisor who will make a pretty penny off of it with no value-added. They could start thinking about gifting to the grandkids, for example into their 529 accounts. This would be nice for us and super super nice for SIL and her family. Instead, DW and I expect they’ll sit on it and end up splitting it between DW and SIL in 20-25 years rather than get some joy out of helping build their grandkids’ futures, and taking family vacations, or something else meaningful to them while they are alive.
In the end, it’s none of my business, and I’ll keep my mouth shut, but it’s a good reminder to me to not be a miser. Resources like these are something to do good with, whatever that good is to you and the people closest to you.
Future inheritance drama:
my parents changed their Wills about 7 years ago, leaving everything to each other, making me executor of the Will of the last person to pass away. I have a sister, who went no-contact about 10 years ago; contact between sister and parents has tentatively been re-established about 4 year ago. My parents like to be completely open about such things, so they informed my sister about 3 years ago of the new Wills and that I am executor. Sister was decidedly unhappy, and even offered to pay for new Wills. Parents declined, and said that as it was sister's decision to go no-contact, they did not think it was wise to give her any final say in the distribution of the inheritance.
My Father passed away in May 2023. Everything was inherited by our Mother, no problems there. But: sister has again put pressure on our Mother to change her Will. She is accusing our Mother of favouritism, and is so jealous/mistrustful that she has hacked our Mother's telephone and tablet (with the help of a cousin). I expect arguments and maybe even a lawsuit when the time comes.....
Wait, your sister hacked into your mother's phone and tablet?!? That is not ok, and your sister can cause serious problems for your mom by doing that sort of thing. That's very close to criminal territory.
No, you're correct, it's an admin role; the inheritance will be divided 50/50.
Maybe ask your mom to consider making her executrix? Less work for you, same money, she gets her feathers stroked....
Future inheritance drama:
Her reasoning out loud has been that "hooligans will break in and take things." Mmmkay.
So sorry for your loss!Hooigans committing burglary is a serious criminal matter, perhaps your SIL should be taking her evidence of this to the police.Her reasoning out loud has been that "hooligans will break in and take things." Mmmkay.
I guess she was right...
Yes, do talk your brother.
Help. My Mom died yesterday, and I am the executor.
Even before my Mom died my SIL started hauling important stuff out of her home. The lockbox with the will and a couple thousand dollars of cash, for example. Firearms. You get the idea. I haven't even seen the will . . . because she has taken it. But everyone seems to know I'm executor.
Her reasoning out loud has been that "hooligans will break in and take things." Mmmkay.
How do I tactfully let her know that I would like to have those items put back in the home while I grieve and have time to start sorting out what I am supposed to do as executor? Siblings and I get along well and I trust them and I'm going to need their help to keep sorting through all this, but SIL removing things is definitely bothering me. Probably need to have a heart-to-heart with my brother (her spouse) about this.
At least your brother isn't simply defending SIL. (Although, why didn't he stop her...?)
Hopefully, she will calm down with some expectations set, with rough timing. You are certainly entitled to grieve first. Also, talking to everyone is a good idea tomshow this isn't just about her.
I have not gone through this yet, but I am preparing to. I found the Nolo Executor's Guide (https://www.amazon.com/Executors-Guide-Settling-Loved-Estate/dp/1413331742/ref=sr_1_1) did a good job laying out the process, and pointing out State-specifoc things.
Thank you for your thoughtful words and helpful suggestions, everyone. I really appreciate it.I would recommend changing the locks anyway. My stepfather died in May, and my sister immediately changed the locks on the house, after taking out some of the valuables (she was the executor).
I talked to my brother and SIL is getting on his nerves with all of this also. Her parents are alive and well and it's clear she has no idea what we are going through. To date she has suggested that pretty much every item of value be given to her kids. She even called a moving company this morning and got a quote to have one of the biggest ticket items moved to her house. I was open to her having this item eventually (she had the nerve to ask me about it in the last few days of my Mom's life), but it is quite valuable, the value needs to be assessed, and her rushing to take things is getting old really, really fast.
I've asked her to stop and I will ask her to stop again if needed and eventually I will stop being nice about it. I don't want to have to change the locks because the house is a mess and we are trying to clean out expired food (it's pretty much all expired), garbage, mountains of old magazines etc. I hope it doesn't come to changing the locks.
The lock box has been brought back, but I haven't even had time to look in it . . . . because we are planning the funeral today.
How do (actual, non-relative) hooligans know that the house is empty? And if they are going to break in, I assume they don’t care about whether the locks are old or new. Not trying to be snarky here, I’m honestly confused by this.
How do (actual, non-relative) hooligans know that the house is empty? And if they are going to break in, I assume they don’t care about whether the locks are old or new. Not trying to be snarky here, I’m honestly confused by this.
Right, thanks oneday and SwordGuy, now I’m back on track with who the real and who the imagined hooligans are.Yes, in the US the obituary also serves as the death notice and notification of any public services (funeral or memorial service and/or if there is a public service at the cemetery (e.g., "graveside service")
Are obituaries really published that fast in the US?
Right, thanks oneday and SwordGuy, now I’m back on track with who the real and who the imagined hooligans are.
Are obituaries really published that fast in the US? Where I am, obituaries tend to be published after a couple of weeks, sometimes even just with a mention of the funeral having been held with the immediate family (typically when the deceased was old enough not to have any close friends left who could have attended). In another European country I know, everything else in life moves slowly but obituaries will be published the same week the death has occurred, complete with a photo of the deceased, a poem, etc. Somehow the strong commercial instincts of the funeral homes make everything happen fast and decisions “having to be” taken quickly…
How do (actual, non-relative) hooligans know that the house is empty? And if they are going to break in, I assume they don’t care about whether the locks are old or new. Not trying to be snarky here, I’m honestly confused by this.Oh, well in my home town, small town, literally people at the bank or at Walmart told my SIL and my nephew that my stepfather was in hospice before the FAMILY could tell him.
Basically I'm feeling pressured to let brother & SIL have assets for less than they are actually worth. It's family, I don't want these things (or anything she has, frankly), and I don't personally need the money. But I do want to be fair to everyone involved and the pushiness of it all is rubbing me the wrong way . . . my Mom hasn't even been dead a week, after all.
Zamboni, so very sorry you are having to deal with this drama.
Insist on getting professional appraisals and divide equitably amongst the heirs. Keep in mind, SIL can be mad at you or you can be made at her. Don’t make decisions just to avoid having her be upset with you.
Zamboni, so very sorry you are having to deal with this drama.
Insist on getting professional appraisals and divide equitably amongst the heirs. Keep in mind, SIL can be mad at you or you can be made at her. Don’t make decisions just to avoid having her be upset with you.
Zamboni, so very sorry you are having to deal with this drama.
Insist on getting professional appraisals and divide equitably amongst the heirs. Keep in mind, SIL can be mad at you or you can be made at her. Don’t make decisions just to avoid having her be upset with you.
Yes! Also keep in mind that none of this is any of your SIL’s business. At all.
Zamboni, so very sorry you are having to deal with this drama.
Insist on getting professional appraisals and divide equitably amongst the heirs. Keep in mind, SIL can be mad at you or you can be made at her. Don’t make decisions just to avoid having her be upset with you.
^This was done with the jewelry at the end of the week. There was one "not costume" piece that was mixed in there by accident, so one of my nieces got it and that is fine. SIL was included in that and had her turns to choose. It pretty quickly dwindled down to a pile of remainders that no one wanted, so that went to the donate pile and this will be the fate of the vast majority of Mom's stuff that isn't just thrown away.
It's clear that my Mom tried to distribute her little bit of non-costume jewelry herself prior to her death. I highly recommend that everyone do that if you are lucky enough to become elderly: give tangible objects away while you are still alive if you care what happens to it or if you want to avoid drama.
I had several realtors come look at the house this morning and they brought market comps. Even the lowest recent sale market comp out of a dozen that have now been submitted is 20% higher than Zillow. Which is also, of course, quite a bit higher than the tax assessment valuation. I will simply supply the data to the interested parties. Brother and SIL probably won't be happy because would like to keep the home and it means more capital is needed to buy other parties out, but I guess we'll see how they react.
One of the difficult things is that I have always had a philosophy against loaning family money. And, of course, that idea has already come up. "Please loan the value of your share to us so we can have it now and pay later." Sigh. I don't want to argue over this crap.
As for the loan, "I'm not comfortable with the idea of loaning money to family so you will need to find another way to make this work if you want to keep the house." Repeat as needed. Don't let them pull you into arguing details about that or anything else. Just parrot back that same statement, no matter what they say. "But our kids need a home!" "For me, lending money and family is never a good idea, so that's not going to work for me." Etc. Then as some point if they keep it up, "I've given you my answer. If you have something else to discuss, great. If not, I think we've reached the end of this conversation."
Just imagine you're Mr. Rogers as you say all that. It will help keep the peace. :)
As for the loan, "I'm not comfortable with the idea of loaning money to family so you will need to find another way to make this work if you want to keep the house." Repeat as needed. Don't let them pull you into arguing details about that or anything else. Just parrot back that same statement, no matter what they say. "But our kids need a home!" "For me, lending money and family is never a good idea, so that's not going to work for me." Etc. Then as some point if they keep it up, "I've given you my answer. If you have something else to discuss, great. If not, I think we've reached the end of this conversation."
"No." is a complete answer. It requires no elaboration. But if one simply must elaborate, then "No, that won't work or us," is a sufficient response. You are not obligated to explain why and should refuse to. If they piss you off, ask them if they will loan you the money to buy it for yourself. The odds are they can't or wouldn't. And they won't like explaining why, either. Before they do, just say, "No, it's none of my business why. Your answer of 'No' is good enough for me." But if they do make the offer, give them a lowball offer and see how they like it. They won't, of course, because then they'll be cheated out of the full value of the house.
Another option could be to list the house for sale and give B and SIL first right of refusal. If someone else agrees to buy for $150k, at that point BIL and SIL know that $150k is market value. They can either buy it at that rate, or let it go to the outside buyer. Just make sure you discuss with your real estage agent and figure out what happens to their commission in that case.
My friend wants to sell her house which is jointly owned with a sibling. For reasons I don’t understand, she’s having trouble getting the sibling to agree, or to pay out some sort of agreement, or etc. in other words she cannot act without agreement from sibling.
My friend wants to sell her house which is jointly owned with a sibling. For reasons I don’t understand, she’s having trouble getting the sibling to agree, or to pay out some sort of agreement, or etc. in other words she cannot act without agreement from sibling.
Is the one who doesn't want to sell or buy benefitting from the use of the property? That'll do it every time.
ESPECIALLY if the other parties are doing the work and paying the expenses to keep the property in working order.
It sounds like there are other heirs, based on the comment about wanting to be fair to everyone. If not, then yeah, Zamboni might want to decide how much of a fight--and strained relationships--this is worth to him.
But if there are other people, as executor, he's obligated to distribute things fairly and evenly (according to the will). So he can't just say, "sure, take the house, which is worth $150k, for your kid, and Asset, which is worth $75k, and everyone else can split the remaining $150k." It's not only morally wrong, it's likely legally wrong, too.
One of the difficult things is that I have always had a philosophy against loaning family money. And, of course, that idea has already come up. "Please loan the value of your share to us so we can have it now and pay later." Sigh. I don't want to argue over this crap.
How do I prevent family members from just thinking that I am unfairly keeping an item for myself?
"I want my kids to inherit this house" is a lot like, "my kids are going to be so thrilled with all of the furniture and knickknacks I've accumulated through the years." They don't want it. Unless they have expressed a clear, enthusiastic desire for the house, they will likely sell it when you are gone. And yes, this goes for vacation houses or lake cabins or similar. Yes, you made happy memories there, and yes you'd love to have your grandkids and great grandkids make more of those. But they probably don't want to. And the more divided it gets across generations, the more of a nightmare it becomes logisistically. When the doc needs to be rebuild and there are 12 parties involved, some with 1/4 share and some with 1/8 share, and everyone has to agree on when to replace, what material to use, which company/bid to use, etc.--no thank you.For tax reasons it's better for the heirs to inherit the house and then sell it, rather than the parent selling it and the heirs receiving the proceeds, due to the step up in basis after the parent is deceased
I don't think people should necessarily sell these assets ahead of time. But certainly don't decide to buy something for the sole purpose of leaving it to your adult children. And don't decide not to sell if you otherwise would, based on wanting to leave it to the kids.
"I want my kids to inherit this house" is a lot like, "my kids are going to be so thrilled with all of the furniture and knickknacks I've accumulated through the years." They don't want it. Unless they have expressed a clear, enthusiastic desire for the house, they will likely sell it when you are gone. And yes, this goes for vacation houses or lake cabins or similar. Yes, you made happy memories there, and yes you'd love to have your grandkids and great grandkids make more of those. But they probably don't want to. And the more divided it gets across generations, the more of a nightmare it becomes logisistically. When the doc needs to be rebuild and there are 12 parties involved, some with 1/4 share and some with 1/8 share, and everyone has to agree on when to replace, what material to use, which company/bid to use, etc.--no thank you.For tax reasons it's better for the heirs to inherit the house and then sell it, rather than the parent selling it and the heirs receiving the proceeds, due to the step up in basis after the parent is deceased
I don't think people should necessarily sell these assets ahead of time. But certainly don't decide to buy something for the sole purpose of leaving it to your adult children. And don't decide not to sell if you otherwise would, based on wanting to leave it to the kids.
"I want my kids to inherit this house" is a lot like, "my kids are going to be so thrilled with all of the furniture and knickknacks I've accumulated through the years." They don't want it. Unless they have expressed a clear, enthusiastic desire for the house, they will likely sell it when you are gone. And yes, this goes for vacation houses or lake cabins or similar. Yes, you made happy memories there, and yes you'd love to have your grandkids and great grandkids make more of those. But they probably don't want to. And the more divided it gets across generations, the more of a nightmare it becomes logisistically. When the doc needs to be rebuild and there are 12 parties involved, some with 1/4 share and some with 1/8 share, and everyone has to agree on when to replace, what material to use, which company/bid to use, etc.--no thank you.
I don't think people should necessarily sell these assets ahead of time. But certainly don't decide to buy something for the sole purpose of leaving it to your adult children. And don't decide not to sell if you otherwise would, based on wanting to leave it to the kids.
Here’s a fun Latin phrase that relates to the thread subject and me:
primogenitus: the first born. In cultural usage: pertaining to the first born son (e.g. inheritance and/or hereditary titles).
Situation: my uncle passed recently, never married and no children. His will split his estate between my father (his older brother) and the male primogenitus blood relative (my older brother). Which excluded me, my older sister and his two grand-niece (who were not even alive when the will was drafted).
Was really expecting $0 from him, as he’s been very charity oriented and we just assumed it would all go there, but it irks me that my brother will inherent somewhere in the low 6-figures simply because he was the first born male to carry the family name (note: my sister is the oldest).
My brother did NOT have any more meaningful of a relationship with my uncle than we did, and he isn’t even listed by name in the will specifically.
For further context, he and my father are immigrants from Eastern Europe (naturalized US citizens for 50+ years).
This thread reminds me of a very old film (1949!) that I watched years ago, that is one of my father's favorites, starring Alec Guinness, called Kind Hearts And Coronets
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041546/
The protagonist finds he is a very distant heir to a dukedom, and slowly kills everyone in front of him, making each murder look like an accident.
"He chopped down the family tree"
Note: It's just a film, YMMV
This thread reminds me of a very old film (1949!) that I watched years ago, that is one of my father's favorites, starring Alec Guinness, called Kind Hearts And Coronets
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041546/
The protagonist finds he is a very distant heir to a dukedom, and slowly kills everyone in front of him, making each murder look like an accident.
"He chopped down the family tree"
Note: It's just a film, YMMV
Awesome film. I especially love that Alec Guinness played all/large number of the family members.
Re primogeniture: that got ditched for very good reasons. Also for some very self serving reasons. Overall however, it got ditched. Anyone still following that system is hopelessly antiquated.
For further context, he and my father are immigrants from Eastern Europe (naturalized US citizens for 50+ years).
... a fun Latin phrase that relates to the thread subject and me: ...Primogeniture was, & apparently remains, an evil. As familiar as I am with it - responsible for many atrocities of history - I can’t believe anyone would choose to do that in the modern day. No one’s experiences with it should go beyond history books & fiction, that’s a terrible thing to do to your own brother’s children.
It's certainly not "fair" (by our modern definition) but I'm choosing to take the optimistic outlook: we are no worse off than before and now I'm less concerned about needing to financially support my older brother should an emergency strike. My personal position is the same as if my uncle had just donated it all to charity, which is what we initially assumed would happen. My uncle didn't owe me anything.
My stepbrother (who is everything I dislike in a person) has turned out to be my mother's supporter within family, he informed his greedy sister that legally the money was my mom's and she had no claim to it. He's told mom that she needs to keep back 25% to cover the taxes.
I'm concerned that she'll still have to pay gift taxes if she hands each of them $40,000 but her lawyer told her that it didn't matter if it was less than $100,000 to each beneficiary but I think that's wrong. Mom is 85 and I'm really worried about how much she's stressing about this.
My stepbrother (who is everything I dislike in a person) has turned out to be my mother's supporter within family, he informed his greedy sister that legally the money was my mom's and she had no claim to it. He's told mom that she needs to keep back 25% to cover the taxes.
I'm concerned that she'll still have to pay gift taxes if she hands each of them $40,000 but her lawyer told her that it didn't matter if it was less than $100,000 to each beneficiary but I think that's wrong. Mom is 85 and I'm really worried about how much she's stressing about this.
It's already August, so your Mom could just give each beneficiary $18,000 this year (the IRS gift limit), put the rest in a money market account, gift the same on Jan 1st (may go up to $19,000 for next year). That would only leave $3 or $4k to be passed along in 2026, plus (interest - taxes on the interest).
Its actually pretty impressive the amount of work she puts in to not working.
Its actually pretty impressive the amount of work she puts in to not working.
I've known a handful of people like this over my life. The most pronounced, at work. If only they could see their scheming from the outside, and realize they themselves would be so much better off to just get on with it. Not to mention, the rest of the world.
Frankly, this is one of the reasons I like the theory of UBI. There's nothing worse than working with/supervising people who do not want to work.
My stepbrother (who is everything I dislike in a person) has turned out to be my mother's supporter within family, he informed his greedy sister that legally the money was my mom's and she had no claim to it. He's told mom that she needs to keep back 25% to cover the taxes.
I'm concerned that she'll still have to pay gift taxes if she hands each of them $40,000 but her lawyer told her that it didn't matter if it was less than $100,000 to each beneficiary but I think that's wrong. Mom is 85 and I'm really worried about how much she's stressing about this.
It's already August, so your Mom could just give each beneficiary $18,000 this year (the IRS gift limit), put the rest in a money market account, gift the same on Jan 1st (may go up to $19,000 for next year). That would only leave $3 or $4k to be passed along in 2026, plus (interest - taxes on the interest).
I believe that is the limit for reporting. Even if you gift more you will not be taxed on it (up to a lifetime limit of $13.6 million or something).
Irritating hassles? Quite possibly. Drama? I'm cautiously optimistic that I might avoid the worst of it.
I'm in no rush to find out.
Am I understanding correctly that your family (just your parents?) are angry with you for using some furniture for its intended use, instead of leaving it unused in a corner of a specific room? And that either way it is in your house, still hypothetically available to be retrieved with adequate warning?
Am I understanding correctly that your family (just your parents?) are angry with you for using some furniture for its intended use, instead of leaving it unused in a corner of a specific room? And that either way it is in your house, still hypothetically available to be retrieved with adequate warning?
@SwordGuy Thanks. It was really sad that the timings worked out as they did, especially as we all felt the strokes were partly caused by her not eating and drinking and taking her pills properly (she had a carer but only once a day) and I feel that one of the main reasons for her to move in with us was to participate in family meals as part of her routine so she couldn't forget stuff like that. So if she'd just not had the stroke for another two months maybe she'd still be alive today. But she was really really old, nearly 100, and had felt "ready to go" for years, especially when her son died in early 2023. I have a lot of peace that we all really did everything we could for her, and she died knowing that I had made the invitation in total seriousness and we were working towards making it happen. I was sad when she died, but OK with it too. It was a good death in the end, and the immediate family were able to be with her in the hospital for the final hours. I remember hugging my mother right after she died and saying, "We did a good job" and her just kind of nodding and saying it back to me. You can't live in the land of might-have-been.
I'm sure you have tried everything with you mother (not just in this situation but since you said this is part of who she is), but what does/would she say if you simply reply with "Why are you saying this to me and not to [brother]?", and then say nothing else? I'm curious, although it is of course none of my business.
@shelivesthedream, why don't you send an email or text (something in writing) to your brother saying that if items aren't picked up by such and such a date, he will have forfeited all claim on them and you will do whatever you see fit with it all. Then you will have a rock solid response to your mom. "Brother didn't pick things up/respond by [date], as I told him to. so it's mine now." Case closed.
I think a person who thinks like shelivesthedream's mom would see this as A) subjecting the brother to undue pressure and simultaneously B) just a scheming way of shelivesthedream to get the furniture for herself, which she probably wanted all along.
If she has decided that oh poor brother is so busy or whatever, no logic will sway her. I wonder if shelivesthedream's excellent relationship with her grandmother, and potential jealousy from the mother's side, was and is a source of this unequal treatment of the siblings.
I think a person who thinks like shelivesthedream's mom would see this as A) subjecting the brother to undue pressure and simultaneously B) just a scheming way of shelivesthedream to get the furniture for herself, which she probably wanted all along.
If she has decided that oh poor brother is so busy or whatever, no logic will sway her. I wonder if shelivesthedream's excellent relationship with her grandmother, and potential jealousy from the mother's side, was and is a source of this unequal treatment of the siblings.
Or maaayyyyyyybe parents are just strange, human creatures who screw up things and have different relationships (not always fair or healthy) with their adult kids?
@shelivesthedream it sounds like the status quo isn’t too frustrating….and you have some lovely furniture full of your things! Keep on being well boundaried and healthy!
@shelivesthedream, why don't you send an email or text (something in writing) to your brother saying that if items aren't picked up by such and such a date, he will have forfeited all claim on them and you will do whatever you see fit with it all. Then you will have a rock solid response to your mom. "Brother didn't pick things up/respond by [date], as I told him to. so it's mine now." Case closed.
I told him he needed to make a firm date to come and pick up any furniture he wanted or to arrange a man with a van to come and pick it up.
It's even more amusing that my brother has turned out to be the one who achieved all the parental expectations on paper (excellent degree, high-flying career, earns loads of money) and yet is the one who is evidently more disappointing in practice (never replies to texts, consumerist lifestyle, probable debt, they don't agree with how he is parenting his children, they don't like his wife as much as my husband (I think)).......... and yet he's still the golden child. Go figure.
@Zamboni , it's stories like yours that make me glad I was an only child, I was the executor, and everything was left to me. I had it easy!
But, for perspective, given the horror stories on this thread, so do you. So relax. :)
And if they want you to do it faster, ask if they want to pony up the money to pay you full time at your current (or last) salary. Or if they want the estate to pay you to work on it full time, which means it comes out of their share.
Or they can just chill and you'll get it done in a reasonable time within the law. :)
Hahaha, that would be hilarious. I'm pretty sure that the court would not consider my "hourly" pay to be in the realm of reasonable.
Hahaha, that would be hilarious. I'm pretty sure that the court would not consider my "hourly" pay to be in the realm of reasonable.
Same as you make at work would be perfectly reasonable (to me, maybe not the courts). Plus incurred expenses. It's work. Just because it's family doesn't mean it isn't work.
… and watch them quickly scuttle away like cockroaches when a light is turned on. :)
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...Am I understanding this correctly, that each of you is attempting to make the other take a larger cut of the inheritance? That's a rather wholesome subversion of expectations!
My inheritance drama is playing out exactly as I predicted on here a while ago.
My father, who died last week, gifted the old family house to my brother D five years ago. D kept it on as a rental. As Dad didn't survive seven years, the gift gets counted into the estate for calculating inheritance tax.
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...
My inheritance drama is playing out exactly as I predicted on here a while ago.
My father, who died last week, gifted the old family house to my brother D five years ago. D kept it on as a rental. As Dad didn't survive seven years, the gift gets counted into the estate for calculating inheritance tax.
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...
Well it’s refreshing to hear about siblings that are concerned with getting *more* than they think they should.
It seems he’s concerned with what others might think. So my question is - how will other people know (and will they genuinely care?). Sure, the house is obvious to external observers, but not the liquid assets. If you are as outwardly supportive of the inheritance as you’ve been here who’s out there talking?
Can you both say that your Dad split his estate “equitably” between his sons and leave the details between the two of you?
My inheritance drama is playing out exactly as I predicted on here a while ago.
My father, who died last week, gifted the old family house to my brother D five years ago. D kept it on as a rental. As Dad didn't survive seven years, the gift gets counted into the estate for calculating inheritance tax.
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...
Well it’s refreshing to hear about siblings that are concerned with getting *more* than they think they should.
It seems he’s concerned with what others might think. So my question is - how will other people know (and will they genuinely care?). Sure, the house is obvious to external observers, but not the liquid assets. If you are as outwardly supportive of the inheritance as you’ve been here who’s out there talking?
Can you both say that your Dad split his estate “equitably” between his sons and leave the details between the two of you?
I think the 'anyone' in this case is just him and me in terms of thinking he looked after them for money. As I know he didn't, that probably narrows it down to him. Dad's wishes aren't something either of us really care about as he was a miserable old miser. When Mom died one of his biggest concerns was losing her tiny state pension. This from a man who was still earning £60k pa and spending £11k. The only reason for the gift was that he couldn't bare the thought of paying higher rate tax on the rent. He did ask at the time if he had to make an equivalent gift to me to avoid friction between me and D. Note the 'had to'. I told him no as D deserved it for everything he'd done for them. I'm still holding to that. I'm also changing the will so that my half goes straight to my kids as I don't want it.
My inheritance drama is playing out exactly as I predicted on here a while ago.
My father, who died last week, gifted the old family house to my brother D five years ago. D kept it on as a rental. As Dad didn't survive seven years, the gift gets counted into the estate for calculating inheritance tax.
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...
I don't need the money, but my kids are just starting out in life and it will make a big difference to them. D has three kids, at least one of which is struggling financially raising his first grandkid, plus D himself is not exactly flush with cash. The cash will definitely be going to places where it will help. You are right though SwordGuy that I should think about making some charitable donations.
@PhilB I don't understand how you can change someone else's will. I do understand that you could gift your inheritance to your children immediately after you receive it, but they don't magically become the heirs in the will . . . the executor cannot change the will, at least not where I live.
Also, does the executor not need to give an accounting of the dispersal of funds to the courts where you live? Where I live, you are supposed to show the court that the stipulations of the will were followed in honor of the wishes of the deceased.
Sure, you can immediately gift your interest in the house to your brother, but technically it sounds like you own half of it until you do that . . . where I live the house would now be owned by the Estate, and then you'd need to sign a quitclaim deed in order for the home to be your brother's free and clear. Perhaps the laws where you are differ, but I think you should spend a little money and consult legal advice on these matters to avoid potential problems later.
I don't need the money, but my kids are just starting out in life and it will make a big difference to them. D has three kids, at least one of which is struggling financially raising his first grandkid, plus D himself is not exactly flush with cash. The cash will definitely be going to places where it will help. You are right though SwordGuy that I should think about making some charitable donations.
What if you offer to do it 60/40 to make it (eventually) balance out for the grandkids instead of 50/50 for you and your brother? I'm not sure what percentage of the estate the house is, or if that would make it more or less uneven... just something to think about.
Yikes, sugaree, I can see how that could get ugly. Can they at least quit-claim it to him now, or retitle it with him as TOD beneficiary? Then hope/pray/help them stay fit for another 5 years....
This is all hypothetical so far, but I'm a bit concerned about my parents' estate is going to play out. The backstory here is that my mom inherited the house I live in from my grandparents. Four years ago, she quit claimed it to me, so we're getting pretty close to being out of the Mesicaid lookback period. The deal at the time was that I would have this house at that time in exchange for my brother getting their house (worth 2x this one) when they pass. Morbid, but it was the closest they've ever come to actually talking about it. Until yesterday. Due to a situation with my in-laws, mom and I had a short conversation about it where I found out that not only have they not done anything to protect the house from Medicaid recovery, they don't even have a will. She said that they were looking at an online template for that. The thing is that I don't need anything else. But I'm afraid that my brother is going to get left out if either of them ends up in LTC. And that could definitely cause some drama and hard feelings. There was a very, very similar situation with some cousins a couple of years ago and I thought my parents had taken notes
My inheritance drama is playing out exactly as I predicted on here a while ago.
My father, who died last week, gifted the old family house to my brother D five years ago. D kept it on as a rental. As Dad didn't survive seven years, the gift gets counted into the estate for calculating inheritance tax.
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...
My inheritance drama is playing out exactly as I predicted on here a while ago.
My father, who died last week, gifted the old family house to my brother D five years ago. D kept it on as a rental. As Dad didn't survive seven years, the gift gets counted into the estate for calculating inheritance tax.
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...
Hopefully this played out as it should with your brother accepting that it's not about money; it's about him keeping his house.
Mostly posting to follow, having finally finished back-reading this thread.
So far, at least the parts I know of my immediate family have been pretty drama-free, although a great-grandparent's New England farmhouse was eventually let go for taxes, deliberately, after a whole herd of cousins my parents' generation couldn't all agree to sell or maintain it. It was not quite old or special enough to be put on the historic register there. Nobody's lived in it for at least 40 years, because it never got indoor plumbing, and the central heating was the 1865 wood stove (also for cooking and baking) that was surely only still there because it was too big and heavy to move.
My parents are both still alive, and their siblings and spouses all seem to be/have been responsible, respectful adults. My dad and his sister have one semi-valuable decorative item they pass back and forth between them, alternating years at Christmas.
I'm in no rush to inherit anything. I don't need more, and my parents are both packrats, especially my mom. The stuff is mostly interesting-but-not-valuable. There are, to my knowledge, no major hygiene issues, no festering seas of empty bottles and cans like in some of the shows. The empty yogurt tubs that "might come in handy someday" (even if they haven't yet) have been washed and neatly stacked, and I won't feel the need to keep them or even account for them, when he time comes. I suspect I may need to comb through pockets, jars, and luggage before donating stuff. That bag of toys I decided I'd outgrown in 4th grade went into the attic and not to the thrift store. And so forth. I'll either be FIRE by then or the need to clean out their house will become the impetus.
I'm probably going to inherit the care of my brother, too. He has the kind of autism that is mild enough that our health care establishments hesitate to diagnose, possibly because the things they might be able to do about it are expensive and ineffective. It's definitely preventing him from holding a good job, whether anyone wants to admit that that's why. Dad still clings to notions of personal responsibility and prods Brother about applying for low-end work that would only frustrate and exhaust him. (Brother has done some driving and data entry work, but isn't cut out for the people parts of anything, and prodding from Dad only ever makes Brother upset, without actually being motivating or helpful.) Dad also thinks Brother is "bad with money," which may be partly true, but also, Brother has never generated enough income to pay the rent and still have much left over to manage.
Brother does tend to come up with a Big Idea that he thinks will be the next great thing, but he seems to lack the wherewithal to either execute on these Big Ideas himself or communicate to anyone else what would need to happen and why—which is endlessly frustrating to Brother and to those of us who occasionally attempt to listen to him.
Brother is getting economic inpatient care from parents, after a landlord closed up shop on a relatively affordable room in a rental house he used to share. Living there puts Brother in range for Dad's opinions and advice, and nobody is very happy about it, but a separate dwelling would cost money that Brother doesn't have and Dad doesn't wish to contribute.
I, meanwhile, got the kind of autism that I've never attempted to get formally diagnosed, because I'm pretty sure that's what it is, and I can mostly mask well enough to hold down a tech job that pays well. I'm the responsible one, and my parents noticed from long ago that I was the cautious tightwad, while my brother only saved his allowance if it was going towards a larger purchase later.
It's likely going to be up to me to negotiate where Brother will live and persuade him to inherit an (existing) annuity as at least part of his portion. I hope he'll let me help organize and automate his finances enough to prevent overdrafts and late fees.
Irritating hassles? Quite possibly. Drama? I'm cautiously optimistic that I might avoid the worst of it.
I'm in no rush to find out.
This is all hypothetical so far, but I'm a bit concerned about my parents' estate is going to play out. The backstory here is that my mom inherited the house I live in from my grandparents. Four years ago, she quit claimed it to me, so we're getting pretty close to being out of the Mesicaid lookback period. The deal at the time was that I would have this house at that time in exchange for my brother getting their house (worth 2x this one) when they pass. Morbid, but it was the closest they've ever come to actually talking about it. Until yesterday. Due to a situation with my in-laws, mom and I had a short conversation about it where I found out that not only have they not done anything to protect the house from Medicaid recovery, they don't even have a will. She said that they were looking at an online template for that. The thing is that I don't need anything else. But I'm afraid that my brother is going to get left out if either of them ends up in LTC. And that could definitely cause some drama and hard feelings. There was a very, very similar situation with some cousins a couple of years ago and I thought my parents had taken notes
Have they done this yet?
Yes. I do have baggage and I do have a therapist. I feel like I have healed and gotten better. But this re opens old wounds.Being able to articulate the hurt as you have does seem to me to like a whole lot of healing has happened. And that is a whole lot of pressure on the scar tissue.
Yes. I do have baggage and I do have a therapist. I feel like I have healed and gotten better. But this re opens old wounds.Being able to articulate the hurt as you have does seem to me to like a whole lot of healing has happened. And that is a whole lot of pressure on the scar tissue.
So my inheritance news is mom told us her intentions last night. She had a bad emmeshed relationship with oldest son where both her and father spent all their resources on him till he died. The weird relationship in lesser form continues with sis. Last night she told me she intends on sis 100% beneficiary of all her assets. I
Knew this was going to happen bc that has been the refrain from sis, all she's been talking about for a few months. Also pushing mom to write a will to that effect. This is after mom already helps her with money every month, gave her a car, and paid a 25k bill for her. While the 2 sibs that are responsible and busting their butts, get nothing. The three things are. I dk by the time mom dies there will be anything left. She may be counting on something that won't be there. Rather than focusing on that she needs to focus on, how to take care of herself like an adult and means of employment. I am mad on behalf of my brother. Otherwise than mom paying a 100-200 bill each month, brother has been hosting both of them, at his expense. He could use the help! Finally, it hurts my feelings. It's irrational but it's true. I feel like I'm the invisible one. This is the latest in a long line of incidences. I still remember a family outing when I was a little kid. We stopped at a rest area. My family took off without me. I dk how long it was. But it was long enough I saw new families arrive, eat their lunches, and leave, until they realized I wasn't in the car and came back for me.
So my inheritance news is mom told us her intentions last night. She had a bad emmeshed relationship with oldest son where both her and father spent all their resources on him till he died. The weird relationship in lesser form continues with sis. Last night she told me she intends on sis 100% beneficiary of all her assets. I
Knew this was going to happen bc that has been the refrain from sis, all she's been talking about for a few months. Also pushing mom to write a will to that effect. This is after mom already helps her with money every month, gave her a car, and paid a 25k bill for her. While the 2 sibs that are responsible and busting their butts, get nothing. The three things are. I dk by the time mom dies there will be anything left. She may be counting on something that won't be there. Rather than focusing on that she needs to focus on, how to take care of herself like an adult and means of employment. I am mad on behalf of my brother. Otherwise than mom paying a 100-200 bill each month, brother has been hosting both of them, at his expense. He could use the help! Finally, it hurts my feelings. It's irrational but it's true. I feel like I'm the invisible one. This is the latest in a long line of incidences. I still remember a family outing when I was a little kid. We stopped at a rest area. My family took off without me. I dk how long it was. But it was long enough I saw new families arrive, eat their lunches, and leave, until they realized I wasn't in the car and came back for me.
So my inheritance news is mom told us her intentions last night. She had a bad emmeshed relationship with oldest son where both her and father spent all their resources on him till he died. The weird relationship in lesser form continues with sis. Last night she told me she intends on sis 100% beneficiary of all her assets. I
Knew this was going to happen bc that has been the refrain from sis, all she's been talking about for a few months. Also pushing mom to write a will to that effect. This is after mom already helps her with money every month, gave her a car, and paid a 25k bill for her. While the 2 sibs that are responsible and busting their butts, get nothing. The three things are. I dk by the time mom dies there will be anything left. She may be counting on something that won't be there. Rather than focusing on that she needs to focus on, how to take care of herself like an adult and means of employment. I am mad on behalf of my brother. Otherwise than mom paying a 100-200 bill each month, brother has been hosting both of them, at his expense. He could use the help! Finally, it hurts my feelings. It's irrational but it's true. I feel like I'm the invisible one. This is the latest in a long line of incidences. I still remember a family outing when I was a little kid. We stopped at a rest area. My family took off without me. I dk how long it was. But it was long enough I saw new families arrive, eat their lunches, and leave, until they realized I wasn't in the car and came back for me.