Inheritance Drama: You Got Any? Stories Wanted.

[Sandi_k]

@Zamboni - my condolences. It is so hard to be dealing with drama while you are grieving, too. You've been amazing for your mom, and I hope that you know that.

Your SIL has shown you quite clearly who she is. I would change the locks; it's the only way to ensure that you can carry out your mom's wishes without the BS that your SIL brings. I'm so sorry. :(

[Zamboni]

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 did a good job laying out the process, and pointing out State-specifoc things.

Brother had actually told his wife to dial it back. He's wrecked, though. He bore the brunt of caring for our Mom the last couple of months when she refused to leave her home. We loved her but she was a difficult person and she basically dragged him to hell and back. We need to grieve.

Thank you for suggesting that guide book. Finally saw the will this evening. I am the executor (Mom had told everyone I was so this is no surprise). I do need to get something like that book to guide me.

[Laura33]

Oh, Zamboni, I'm so sorry that you're dealing with this.

I'm concerned about the extra burden SIL is placing on your in your role as executor.  You're going to be the one responsible for making sure that the right "things"/money go to the right people.  So if she's taking things that aren't supposed to go to her family, she's putting you in a really difficult situation.

Once you're through the funeral, one of the first things I'd recommend is that you ask all of the siblings for a list of everything they've taken from the house (for "safekeeping" or not).  You can make it one list for all siblings, so she doesn't feel targeted, if you need to.  But you want to know what she has so you can account for it, before she has time to "forget" that she took it -- and then if you find out she took something else that she didn't mention, you've got whatever proof you need to protect yourself.

That role also gives you every right to tell everyone that nothing else can be taken until further notice, because you need to make sure everything is distributed in compliance with the will, and as everyone understands, this is a really emotional time right now, and you need a little time before you'll be able to deal with those decisions.

[mm1970]

Thank you for your thoughtful words and helpful suggestions, everyone. I really appreciate it.

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.

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). 

BC hooligans will break in.

[NorthernIkigai]

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.

[oneday]

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.

As I understand it, actual, non-relative hooligans are just the imaginary boogeyman that SIL was using as a pretext for taking the items. There was never any danger of real hooligans. SIL actually fulfilled the role of hooligan, and then used a psychological phenomenon known as projecting in an attempt to cover her tracks.

Changing the locks protects from the real/likely culprits (eg, SIL).

[SwordGuy]

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.

Three points:

1) SIL has keys.   She's already confiscated stuff she's not supposed to.    Change the locks.   If she breaks in after that, it's a felony, not a "family misunderstanding."

2) Neighbors might have keys.   Locks keep relatively honest people honest.   Same reason, it becomes a felony to enter and that will deter people who aren't hardened criminals.

3) Professional thieves will look at the obituaries in the paper.  They are a variety of web-based services that enable one to locate a person's address given a name and city.   It costs a few dollars.   If they are a home-owner, the county registrar of deeds will show the houses they own.  Most people only own one in a given county.   If the obituary has the time and date of the service, they'll know when the family won't be there.

And, so will thieving relatives.  They'll take stuff from the house whilst other relatives are at the funeral.   In a similar case, a good friend's step-dad died.  He and his mom were at the hospital staying with him till the end.  His daughter was at the bank emptying out her dad's bank accounts because she was a signatory on them.   

[NorthernIkigai]

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…

[Smokystache]

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?

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")

[Sugaree]

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…

Yes, in certain areas, it's common to have someone stay at the deceased's house during the funeral because the date and time announcement are part of the obit. 

[mm1970]

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.

So, you've got people in town who watch the obituaries.  And they may easily just go look for the spare key, assuming there is one. 

So, less "breaking in" than "people who know he's dead and may have a spare key or know where to find one."  BC my stepdad lived in the same house for 34 years.

[Zamboni]

I'm officially worn out.

My mom was not a wealthy woman. Quite the contrary.

She did own her little house free and clear and she had one fairly sizable physical asset (the one SIL wants). I just search the serial number on it and it was easy to find several comps . . . all listed at $50K-$100K. So that's going to be pulling teeth because SIL really wants it, brother doesn't actually seem to want it, so they'll have to work that out between themselves. And while I'm not an appraiser, my Mom did keep this item in superb condition, there are plenty of likely accurate comps I can see online, so I suspect the realistic value is more than double what they want others to agree upon.

And then there's the house. By far the cleanest thing to do would be just clear it out, clean it up, and sell it. Basically all it needs is new flooring to put on the market in good condition, and as I said it is modest. So a fairly small amount of new flooring. It has a nice little grassy yard and is in a very great location, less than 50 yards in various directions to a giant park with a big pool, public library, post office, and medical clinic. And here's where it gets complicated again. SIL actually said in the past week that she might want to move there. Brother was surprised and told her no way. They both then pivoted that they want it for one of their children. They pointed out none of their adult children can afford it. So they want to work out some sort of deal. I don't know. What are even the options? Sigh.

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.

[SwordGuy]

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.

I ran across a quote awhile back that really stayed with me.

Getting money doesn't change people, it just makes it easier for them to be what they already are.

In this case, it looks like merely the hope of getting money has revealed people for what they really are.

It's sad.  I feel for you.

[iluvzbeach]

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.

[hooplady]

Zamboni, I'm so sorry you're having this ridiculous drama.

It's called a "Will" because it's literally the WILL - the wishes and decree - of the decedent. The executor is expected to carry out those instructions, whether convenient or expected or desired by the remaining heirs. It takes some strength to do this, I hope you can find it. {{{Hugs}}}

This reminds me, I need to thank the sibling who handled the estate for my mom. It's been many years, we didn't have much drama and that's due to their deft handling. I'm sure it was hard, and I should thank them again.

[NorthernIkigai]

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.

[LaineyAZ]

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.

I agree with this but in reality, many families have become permanently estranged over distribution disputes from relatively small amounts of assets in an estate.

IMO, I'd consider what my personal relationships with SIL and brother would look like under different scenarios. 
You can be strict about your executor duties and receive the most $ for these assets and distribute that per the will, or you can be less strict and allow brother and SIL some family discount.

If you don't need the money and there's no other heirs who would be affected, and you want to have a continuing drama-free relationship with them, then the latter is the way to go.

I'm sorry you're being put in the middle of this.

[uniwelder]

@Zamboni I’m not sure if this is nit picking or actually relevant, but in your original post, you mentioned siblings (plural). We haven’t heard anything about their stake in this. So far everything has been between you and brother and SIL. Is there another family member involved?

[ATtiny85]

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.

I’ll pile on and quote this. I also feel bad for Zamboni's brother, this is likely illuminating for him. Illumination of darkness.

[JAYSLOL]

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.

+1 to professional appraiser coming in for the house and assets so it’s not you vs them, it’s the appraisal vs their demands

[Villanelle]

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.

Thankfully, that gives an easy out.  "the estate must be distributed evenly among the X parties named in the will [assuming that's what the will stipulates].  We will have the house, and Assest-SIL-Wants, and anything else of value, professionally appriased, which will be paid for out of the estate.  Then I will add up the value of everything and divide by X, and that's what each person gets.  If someone wants to keep a specific asset or the house, they can buy out the other parties by paying 2/3 of the value (or taking that amount less from everything else).  If not, then we will have to sell everything. Once we have the values of house and asset, we will see if you are interested in buying everyone out, before I arrange to sell them."

Keep it business like.  If SIL and Bro want to try to make plans to have some other beneficiary carry the loan on the house, they can arrange that privately.  That's separate from everything else and shouldn't even be discussed in the same conversations.  It should be, Okay, house is worth $125k and Thingy is worth $75k.  If you want to buy out everyone for $50k each (or whatever it works out to based on number of parties), you can do so.  Otherwise, I will arrange the sale."

If she then goes to sibling A and asks them to carry a $50k loan for her, and makes the same arrangement with sibling B and Zamboni, cool.  Or if she gets A and B to let her owe them $50k, and lend her an additional $25k each to buy out Zamboni, great.  Otherwise, it must be sold. 

[chrisgermany]

I can highly recommend the old roman rule : One shares the other chooses.
That can be applied to more than one party, too: The first person makes as many lots of equal value as there are recipients. Then each of them gets a chance to exchange peaces between the lots as they see fair. Than a draw will be made who chooses among the lots first, second etc

I once shared a large amount of real jewelry and costume jewelry, with each heir taking a piece of their choice one by one. It saved appraisal cost and everybody got some pieces they really appreciated.

[Zamboni]

^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.

[Zamboni]

One more question for everyone to consider:
The deceased did gift some of their things before their death, as I'm sure is often the case. As far as I know this started when my children were born and so it has been going on for a couple of decades at least. When she previously gave me or my children something, I never advertised it to others. How do I prevent family members from just thinking that I am unfairly keeping an item for myself?

Mom did definitely have a small number of semi-valuable things that seem to be gone. She could have sold them herself, she could have given those things away, they could be hidden somewhere and will be discovered eventually, or they could have been removed without her permission (this seems least likely, and I would never accuse someone of this.)

[Villanelle]

^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.

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.

Speaking of commission, you could also use the comps and realtor conversations to determine FMV and offer it to B and SIL at 5% less than that (assuming 5% would be what you paid in commission).  This is how DH and I bought my grandmother's condo from her estate.  The beneficiaries got the same amount in their pockets (if not slightly more since it was fast since there were no carrying costs as it waited to be sold, they had no expenses associated with preparing it for sale, and we even agreed to deal with emptying it out).  We got a house for about 5% less than we'd have had to pay on the open market, but not at anyone's expense.  Of course, this requires everyone to agree on a fair price/value. 

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."

[SwordGuy]

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.

[SwordGuy]

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. :)
"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.

[reeshau]

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.

This sounds quite fair to me, particularly if they choke on realtor comps vs. Zillow or whatever.  It will put a real cash offer in front of them.  It also puts them under pressure to line up an alternative: get mortgage approved, etc.

Include some timeframe for them, that fits within typical timing for valid offers.

[iluvzbeach]

If brother & SIL want the house and have the funds to pay the going rate, hire a professional appraiser to provide an appraisal. That way they cannot say a realtor is just giving you an inflated price to get the listing. A professional appraisal will cost around $500 and will be money well spent.

Your mother made a will or had a trust that outlined how she wanted her estate divvied up. Your job is to abide by her wishes, not your brother & SIL’s wishes. She set you up in this role because she knew you could be counted on to follow her wishes.

[iris lily]

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.

Meanwhile, she’s looking at downsizing into newer construction so that she’ll have something nice to leave tomher children because she wants them to have joint ownership of this property she’ll  be leaving them.

I do not understand why she can’t see the problems she is leaving for her children as a repetition of the problems she has now.

[SwordGuy]

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.

[iris lily]

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.

My friend lives in the house. I do not understand her dilemma because I dont have all of the info and I won’t  ask. But this just points out: owning property with someone you aren’t  married to can turn bad.

[Villanelle]

"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. 

[Laura33]

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.

Zamboni, please, please listen to this.  If you are executor, and you allow one beneficiary to take an unfair share, you are opening yourself up to claims by the other beneficiaries.  You are not making a problem go away by giving in -- you are just turning SIL's general whining into your legal liability.

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.

Then don't.  Takes 2 to argue.  You are 100% in control of how much you argue over this.

How do I prevent family members from just thinking that I am unfairly keeping an item for myself?

I think this is the real crux of the problem.  It's not that you don't want to argue -- it's that you don't want to be forced to say no and be the bad guy, or be vulnerable to criticism, or be portrayed as the problem.

Answer: you can't control what others think of you.  So stop trying.  It only makes your life harder.  Your SIL is currently causing all sorts of drama and angst by taking things she's not entitled to and guilting you into giving even more.  IOW, she is being a total asshole to you, at the absolute worst possible time to make you deal with an asshole.  So why does her opinion of you matter one teensy little whit?  Why reward the worst-behaved beneficiary by trying to accommodate her requests to grab way more than your brother's fair share?

The only way to deal with this is to disengage entirely.  Give everyone the same answer:  I am simply the executor.  All I can do is execute my mother's will.  I am grieving and cannot even begin to think about other things right now.  I'll deal with XYZ when we get to that point.  Etc.

If you have to, hire a lawyer to be executor to get yourself out of the middle.  I know your mom doesn't have a lot of assets, and you don't want to blow them on a lawyer.  But if the idea of a straightforward "no" to grasping, asshole in-laws is causing you so much extra pain and strife and overwhelming you, it's worth the money.  And you can blame them for the extra cost -- you were getting so many individual requests that you weren't sure what you could do without breaking the law, so you brought in a lawyer to decide those things.
 
Your only responsibility right now is to your mother -- and your own mental health.  You do not need to find a way to make everyone happy (and, really, given what you've said about your SIL, that's an impossible bar under any circumstances).  You do not need to accommodate everyone's requests/demands/complaints.  You do not even need to listen to them!  All you need to do is divide the assets like your mother said to.  Period.  Done.  End of discussion.  If SIL wants the "thing," SIL can come up with the money to pay the estate for it.  If B/SIL want the house, they can get a mortgage like everyone else and pay the estate for it.  Etc. etc. etc. 

[sonofsven]

"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.

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

[Villanelle]

"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.

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

Sure, but are those tax reasons worth more than the value of sparing your kids from arguing when one wants to seel for the $125k offer on the table, and another wants to wait and try for $150k. 

But, as I said, it may not make sense to sell now in order to simplify for the kids, but it certainly doesn't make much sense to buy now in order to leave something to the kids.  (Iris mentioned downsizing to leave to the kids.)

[iris lily]

"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.

Yes, so much all of this.

[nereo]

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).

[uniwelder]

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).

Are you on good terms with your siblings?  Maybe your brother will recognize the weirdness of the wording in the will and split it three ways?

[sonofsven]

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

[Sibley]

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.

[BabyShark]

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.

Also the inspiration for an excellent Broadway musical A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder.  Similar concept with one actor playing the family members to be bumped off. 

[TheGrimSqueaker]

For further context, he and my father are immigrants from Eastern Europe (naturalized US citizens for 50+ years).

Yep. That'll do it. There's not a more misogynistic, reactionary, anti-gay, antisemitic, controlling, hierarchical, and artificially aggrieved culture on this planet. You can always find individuals who don't share those toxic values, but as a group? There's no such thing as an amount of time that can cause them to stop kicking their families around for no reason.

[eyesonthehorizon]

@Zamboni - I’m so sorry to hear about your mom. I hope you’re able to formalize the situation & get the uninterrupted peace you should have had in the first place to mourn. Be gentle with yourself, you have been through a lot.

... 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.

[nereo]

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.

[Catbert]

Zamboni - I'm sorry for your loss.  Even more sorry for your SIL.  I agree with the advice given by others.  For starters, this is a sibling inheritance and spouses should not be involved.  Get the house appraised and "offer" it to the heirs at FMV or a bit less than FMV to account for no realtor fees.  If there are 3 siblings, then one could buy it with a healthy (33%) down payment and a mortgage company.  No way would I get wrapped up in loaning giving (bc realistically that's what would happen) my share of the inheritance to them.  The same goes for the Valuable Item.  If your brother really wants it, he could get it by paying for it with the money from selling the house.  There might be more legitimate wiggle room on the price here.  An appraised value might be a higher number than what it would actually sell for...really depends on the item.

 

[Captain FIRE]

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.

Optimistically, maybe your dad will see the unjust nature of this and decide to make his will out so you inherit his portion? Or does he also subscribe to the theory women are worth less/somehow need to fund retirements less because they should be dependent on men?

I wouldn't be too relieved by this just yet. Your brother may be apt to go through his portion rapidly, in the nature of many with an unexpected windfall.

[Fi(re) on the Farm]

So my mother and step-father got married in 2001. They both came into the marriage with children so they agreed that they would keep their money separate and what they had would go to their respective children. Fast forward to November of 2022. My step-father passed away and my mother and their lawyer are the executors. My mother's assets are pretty clear. We all know where her money is but my step-father was a different story, multiple insurance policies, multiple bank accounts, multiple retirement account.

My mother thinks she has it all straighten out but two more accounts show up in the last 6 months. One is pretty clear cut, his kids are the beneficiaries but the other is a disaster. My Sdad put my mom as beneficiary on an account that has $200,000 in it. My mom wants to stick to their original agreement and give his kids the money but the account is tax deferred so there will be taxes if she pulls it out and gives it to them. my step-sister constantly calls the lawyer and wants to know where the money is. Mind you, she's already got $250,000 but she wants the other 1/4 of what was in the account.
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.

 

[Dave1442397]

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).

[exterous]

I feel very privileged to have the opportunity to join such a fun story group

Step MIL recently passed away after a very extended battle with Alzheimer's. There's a pretty complicated and decent sized family tree involved but its a pretty amicable group except for one person. My SIL. If you talked to her you'd hear about how life is very unfair and no one can possibly understand how hard it is to be a single mom of one kid. This is despite her ex being an active parent (~33% custody) and paying child support like clockwork. She's even told other single mothers with more kids to care for and completely absent fathers that they don't understand how hard it is for her.  Its so hard she can't possibly work full time. She couldn't even manage 20 hours a week at a bank and is now on unemployment. If there is a social program loophole she's used it. Its actually pretty impressive the amount of work she puts in to not working. And whatever money she gets never stays around. Right around April new furniture suddenly appears or a trip to Vegas happens. Then by December she "doesn't have enough money for Christmas presents, gas, or groceries." I'm sitting here trying to think about the last time she had a full time job and it's got to be at least 15 years now.

So the inheritance drama itself: She convinced the Trustee for the Step MIL's trust that, via the hardship provision in the trust, she needed financial help. I mean she's got the sob story down so you really have to get to know her to understand the gap between the story and reality. Anyway, while Step MIL needed expensive memory care, SIL was given a sizeable distribution. The same SIL who never visited Step MIL while she was in memory care. Not even when it was just a regular retirement home. Well she burned through that distribution pretty quickly. So she needed another and got it for a last and final time.

Now that the trust assets and distributions have been shared everyone learned that those didn't come out of 'her' portion of the inheritance. Everyone's distribution is reduced to cover what she got earlier so she's getting $90,000 more than anyone else. This is in addition to other free things and money the family has given her over the years. No thanks or gratitude just a lot of lies. It wouldn't surprise me if someone formally objects to the distribution proposal and the whole process becomes a lot more complicated.

The family is split on wanting her at the funeral with some wanting the family to be together at a time like this while most don't want her there at all and have told her that. I've kept my opinion to myself when there were broader family discussions despite being with my wife for over 20 years. The closest I came to giving an answer when asked if I think she should be invited was to ask a question: "Well she lived 1 hour away from Step MIL. How many times did she visit Step MIL over the past 8 years of her life while working part time or less?"

Zero. The answer is zero times. I don't know her motivation for showing up now but it sure seems suspicious to me. SIL says she's coming despite people telling her they don't want her there. So I'm sure this won't be awkward or tense at all....