Inheritance Drama: You Got Any? Stories Wanted.

[Zamboni]

Question about unclaimed property and inept family:

My Dad is in his 70's. My Dad's uncle, who never married and had no children, passed away decades ago and has unclaimed property listed with the state where he lived. I know that at least some of the unclaimed property is stocks. My Dad's grandfather on the same side (so my great grandfather and the father of the deceased uncle) also has unclaimed property listed. Finally, his deceased Aunt (also who never had children) has unclaimed property listed . . . for this particular one at least I know he is listed as an heir. All of this property is being held by the same state.

When this was first discovered by the family, it was suggested to another Uncle (the only living brother of the dead Aunt and Uncle) that he claim it. He never claimed it and the unclaimed property is still listed with the state in online records. At this point the money has been held by the state for a very long time (30-50+ years.) Suffice it to say that my extended family is very inept. I doubt that anyone has ever tried to claim any of these funds.

My Dad doesn't have any retirement money. If he has a claim to these estates, then I would like to help him acquire it because he really needs it even if it is only $50. Neither my Dad nor I still live in the state where all of this unclaimed property is being held, so it's slightly a pain, but at least it's driving distance for me.

Has anyone ever been through anything like this? I'm going to call the state comptroller's office next week to see what they say. I don't think there's a fortune here, but at the same time it seems a shame to have funds rotting in state coffers for decades when there is a living relative who has a legitimate claim.

Please offer any advice that you can think of if you've ever been though something like this.

[TomTX]

For most states, you start the process with an online filing. We could help more with specifics if you told us which mysterious state is holding the money.

[Zamboni]

Maryland.

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.

[Goldielocks]

Estate - unclaimed property.

Situation --

Woman dies, her parents have pre-deceased her and her brother is estranged for the past 30years (and moved to another country after completing the first part of his residency).  She does have 17 cousins, some of who know each other but most live across 5 different states and only meet up (some) every 10 years or so.

My friend (a cousin) was contacted by the government rep (hired to execute the will) after they had been trying to locate the brother for a year or two, to let him know sister had died.   All they could find was one or two cousins.  My friend was the first cousin to try to help, as she had met the sister and brother previously (that family in particular was living away from the rest of the family and rarely met up).   She was asked to try to find the brother.   She turned to me.  All she knew was the school he went to for undergrad degree (her home university), and what he intended to study after and that he may have moved usa but she did not know where.  She had a last name and a probable first name, but he tended to use a nickname at times.   We assumed that he would be between 77 and 79 yeras old based on when he entered university.

I did some on-line sleuthing and came up with three possible candidates, partly because his first legal name is not too common.   She tried to reach out to the last known addresses and could not get an answer.   The next year she was travelling in the area and just went and knocked on the door of the most likely one.  This person has been retired for quite a while. 

Found!

Anyway -- the story highlights that an online submission will start the process of getting a rep for the estate to look into how many people may be formed as part of the estate, and that can take a while if you have a large estranged family.  Paperwork submission helps to jumpstart the process as you may be able to give a lot of family name details.  Everyone must be identified or eliminated, or a time limit expires after a lot of due dilligence before a payout can happen.

[TomTX]

Maryland.

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.

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.

[Villanelle]

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.

If SIL had the gall to complain within earshot of me, I'd be awfully tempted to express my sympathies and tell her how unfortunate that was as the stuff we got was worth quite a bit.  (I wouldn't if only because she might actually try to use that comment as some sort of proof of unfairness, perhaps even pursing it legally, but I'd be tempted!)

[Zamboni]

Oh dear. Always best to assume that jewelry is fake . . . then you might be pleasantly surprised!

[Dave1442397]

Oh dear. Always best to assume that jewelry is fake . . . then you might be pleasantly surprised!

That was my attitude when I took it to the jeweler. I figured if it was real, we'd have some spending money for our upcoming vacation, and if not, the vacation money is already budgeted, so no loss.

[Zamboni]

I had a similar thing happen with some "family silver." It was all silver-plated, which is not worth much. It's pretty, though.

[Alfred J Quack]

I had a similar thing happen with some "family silver." It was all silver-plated, which is not worth much. It's pretty, though.

We had the opposite though, and the appraiser worked on a fee based on the appraised value which probably inflated the price too... So in the future, we're going to limit the maximum price or find another appraiser.

[Just Joe]

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!

[BabyShark]

This isn't my drama, but the first question on this advice column sure is something.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/06/pet-bequests-estate-dispute-advice.html

[talltexan]

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.

[charis]

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.

Well, the grandfather is entitled to see his granddaughters as individual people, not just members of a household, and the money is earmarked for college.  So unless there's a plausible possibility that the other daughter was planning to put her dog through college, this is ridiculous.

[SwordGuy]

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.

You've missed the point.

None of the children or grandchildren has the slightest right to any of the money.  Period.

If the grandmother wants to give that money to a trust that will take care of her favorite rutabaga plant she's free to do so.

The correct response to someone giving you money in their will is, "Thank you, and I hope I don't see a penny of it for a wonderfully long time."

It is not, "I am entitled to more, more, more!"

[A Fella from Stella]

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!

What's crazy is that even at 20 in college he made something like $20k a year. I know because my dad said "you made $20,000 last year, and have nothing to show for it." He consistently pulled in decent income, but at 28 was living at our parents' house with nothing saved. Even when mom and dad downsized, he came with them.

I do not talk to him, but you'll be glad to know he's a very productive member of society nowadays, with a family and career. I think he just saw the inheritance as something that was coming to him, and it was for free.

[Jadzia37000]

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.

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.

[ysette9]

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.

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.

Wow.
Good for your grandmother for setting up that kind of trust at the last minute! That is a good way to handle irresponsible people without cutting them out completely.

[partgypsy]

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.

[ysette9]

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.

[talltexan]

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.

[Captain FIRE]

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.)

[Dancin'Dog]

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. 

[Psychstache]

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]

[Captain FIRE]

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]

People definitely do that, whether it's an urban legend for your family specifically or not.  That said, T&E professor advised we recommend against that course of action as well.  $1 is essentially 0, so there's nothing to induce a relative not to litigate.  And with such inflammatory message, they are possibly more likely to litigate. 

[BeanCounter]

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.

[TVRodriguez]

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.

It's called an "in terrorem" clause, b/c it's supposed to put fear into the potential beneficiaries (really, in terror--in fear) to stop them from contesting the will with the threat of losing whatever amount they would have gotten under the will (or trust).  It's not legal in all jurisdictions.

[haflander]

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 :)

[Dicey]

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.

[honeybbq]

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.

In our situation, there's a person who would kill themselves with drugs if they suddenly had access to that amount of money. That's not what a parent wants for their children even beyond the grave.

[DeniseNJ]

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 :)

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!

[Dicey]

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 :)

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!

Much as I love it here, I hope this place is dead and gone long before you are!

[BeanCounter]

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 :)

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!

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.

[saguaro]

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.

In a similar vein, I have both of my sisters as contingent beneficiaries on a couple of bank accounts in the event I survive DH.  We have no kids.   The split is equal.   I am considering modifying one sister's share in light of the shit she has pulled since our parents died including concerns that she is stealing money.  She has delayed, stalled and obfuscated to the point that both other sister and I think it's to gain a greater share for herself.   So once I get an accounting when the estate is closed out, that difference might just be deducted from her share.

[FIRE@50]

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?

[ysette9]

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?

This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.

[Dicey]

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?

This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.

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!

[Kitsune]

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?

This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.

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.

[SwordGuy]

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?

This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.

Hard to be sure about that.

[ysette9]

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?

This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.

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.

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.

[ysette9]

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?

This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.

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 hope your day looks up

[Dancin'Dog]

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. 

[Alfred J Quack]

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.

Disclaimer: I come from a country where it is impossible for direct descendants to be completely disinherited.

There are always reasons to change the distribution of an inheritance. Some emotional, some financial and some practical. In our case, our mother has limited the inheritance of my brother to the legal minimum and me and my sister have been designated to handle the estate. Our youngest brother has caused this by his own actions and though I don't agree per se. When the time comes I do think I should be the responsible one because my sister is a good person but not necessarily good with money (they keep their mortgage at max for the tax return on paid interest)...


In my own family's case, our youngest son (3) has Down's syndrome. Giving him his full share is problematic because he likely isn't capable to manage it himself as well as tax being a problem. He's exempt from inheritance tax up to a certain amount but wealth is taxed afterwards so his wealth will likely decline as he ages without being used...

So, looking at the tax situation there is an option to create a sort of trust where we appoint a financial guardian and stipulate that the money can only be used to improve quality of life. This way, the inheritance isn't classified as wealth and can't be used to pay for things that would otherwise would have been paid for by the state. The intention is that his inheritance is likely to last longer and used for his benefit.
However, the question remains who to set up as the guardian. Our oldest son may do so but this is largely dependent on how his financial prowes develops (he's 6 so can't say yet). So, I'm trying to work out who to appoint as guardian should we pass prematurely (i'm not fond of professional services but i'm also not fond of appointing one of my siblings due to their own money-mismanagement). This gives me some headaches at times....

[former player]

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.

A significant proportion of prostitutes have been victims of sexual assault as children, and cocaine leaves a trail of death of misery behind its production and trafficking.  The harm is not as obvious but it is still there.  No-one I thought was buying sex or illegal drugs would get a penny of my money to do it with.

[Imma]

@Alfred J Quack if you don't trust your siblings a professional might be a good option, there are a lot of bad professionals around but also a lot of good trustworthy ones. If you appoint relatives I'd always make sure I'd appoint two and who if possible don't have a financial interest in your son's inheritance. If you have trustworthy young-ish aunts or uncles that could also be an option. If you have trustworthy reliable friends you could also ask them to handle his affairs. You don't have to be a blood relative to care for someone. We don't have kids yet but I know we would pick a very reliable friend as a legal guardian over our unreliable siblings any day.

Of course in many cases siblings handle the affairs of their disabled siblings very well, but there's also the sad example I've seen in my extended family. A man with Down's syndrome was left a significant sum of money by his parents  (his fair share of the value of a farm that was sold). His siblings took care of his affairs and while they loved him, he lived a good life and was happy, they never spent anything on things they considered 'unnecessary' because they knew their brother's estate would eventually pass to their kids. They loved their own kids more than they loved their brother. The sad thing is that even if they had spoiled their brother quite a bit there'd still be a fortune left.

[UnleashHell]

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?

[SwordGuy]

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.

[AMandM]

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?

[BeanCounter]

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.

[UnleashHell]

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.