Inheritance Drama: You Got Any? Stories Wanted.

[BTDretire]

Oh good, a place to rant. :-)
  Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
 She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings. 
 After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
 Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
 The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh!  Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
  From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
 Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
 During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
 OK, rant over.

[Noodle]

An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.

Sounds exactly wrong to me.  Why should one kid's family be impoverished just because their sibling decided to pop out more kids?

If I had asymmetric grandchildren, I might give them each a little token (like $5k for their college funds) but the bulk of my estate would be split evenly between my kids.  Except in my particular case I also have step-kids, which complicates things even further because they may also inherit from their biological father.

My response was accepting the assumption of "skipping" the inheritance directly to the grandkids. But actually, if that could be discarded I would be in favor of your solution of dividing things equally among the children. That seems even more sensible to me.

My grandparents on both sides were subject to a lot of family drama when their parents died, which created hard feelings that lasted for decades. They were resolved not to put their children through the same thing, and both ended up going the "split it equally between the kids, let them figure out what to do about grandkids" route. On one side, one child was married with children and the other was single and childfree, and I think the belief was that the singleton might actually need the money more having no spouse or children (in later years) to help her out if things went wrong. On the other side, one child had fairly recently remarried and brought stepchildren into the family who were not very close to their new relatives(they were teenagers and not all that interested in hanging out with family of any kind) but Grandma knew that son would be hurt if his family was left out. So the least touchy way to handle it was to base the division on the kids.

One advantage to that approach is that if more grandchildren are born later, they can get an even share when their own parents divide things...my single aunt did marry and have children several years after her parents passed.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Oh good, a place to rant. :-)
  Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
 She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings. 
 After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
 Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
 The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh!  Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
  From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
 Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
 During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
 OK, rant over.

No, actually, it doesn't. She may have had the right to access it, but she didn't have the right to steal it. The estate didn't go through probate, and it's not legally "her" house even though she's living in it. I recommend you see a good estate lawyer who may also recommend filing a criminal complaint.

[Ann]

Careful, having few or no siblings cuts both ways especially when the parents start getting older.  When the parents need help there is no dividing the costs (time and monetary) up among many siblings.  Just because they were an only child does not guarantee they got more resources growing up.

Actually, I think skipping the children's generation and dividing directly into grandkids is odd.  But I do think it is fair to divide whatever you are going to leave specifically to grandkids evenly among grandkids.  Those children themselves will receive a greater or smaller inheritance from their OWN parents based on sibling number.

Why WOULD you skip the children, especially if they will need help in retirement?  If they absolutely need no help (multimillionaires), then why would the single grandkid need more money than the multiple cousins?

Not sure there can be a good universal rule here, in each family you need to look at the specifics and make judgement calls on what is best and what can be done with what is available. 

That I can agree with!  Certainly I can type all day about how I think things "would" be fair, everything else being even.  But every situation is unique.  Just piss them all off and give it all to charity!

Why should one kid's family be impoverished just because their sibling decided to pop out more kids?

  That's the attitude I dislike about inheritance drama.  The attitude that NOT being GIFTED an inheritance is "impoverishing" you.  You either already are or aren't impoverished, by luck or life choices.  Inheritance surely can help, but at the cost of the life of your loved one. 

[Nederstash]

Not sure if I posted this here already, but I can't be arsed to read back the comments. Two elderly ladies, both in their 80s, unmarried and childless, lived close together. They were friends, one poor and one rich. The poor lady, who could hardly make ends meet, took care of the other when her health started failing. Don't know how long, but somewhere 6 months to a year. Rich old lady eventually died. Poor old lady got the call the house needed to be cleared within a week. So here's this poor old lady, not in really great shape to be lifting furniture, with no friends or family who suddenly gets the job of clearing the house. She had no clue what to do so after a few days she just called the thrift shop and they cleared the entire house. She never saw a penny for all her stress.

The inheritance? All 300k went to charity.

Not saying the poor lady had a 'right' to inheritance because she took care of her friend in her last months, but the rich lady could've made more of a gesture!

[Ann]

That stinks.  Who called and told a non-relative they had to perform non-compensated work? Seriously, who made that phone call?  Probably the person who was ACTUALLY in charge of the estate' and who probably actually got paid.

[Cyaphas]

As for skipping generations when dolling out inheritance. My parent's and their siblings have all managed to blow through hundreds of thousands in inheritance, we're talking really stupid materialism, and when they all die won't leave much. It doesn't bother me, but from a neutral point of view it seems kind of a shitty thing to do.

The reason very wealthy skip generations? If the estate is large enough ($5 million+ in the US?,) you can avoid transfers of wealth being taxed on death by willing portions to the grand kids.

Example:
Grandparent has $10m in assets.

If they give the it all to the Parent anything over 5 million is taxed at a high rate. It will be taxed again when the Parent gives it to the Grandkid.

If they give $5M to Parent and $5M to the Grandkid. When the Parent dies they've avoided paying the death tax twice on the original wealth.

At least... I believe that's how that works.

[Paul der Krake]

As for skipping generations when dolling out inheritance. My parent's and their siblings have all managed to blow through hundreds of thousands in inheritance, we're talking really stupid materialism, and when they all die won't leave much. It doesn't bother me, but from a neutral point of view it seems kind of a shitty thing to do.

The reason very wealthy skip generations? If the estate is large enough ($5 million+ in the US?,) you can avoid transfers of wealth being taxed on death by willing portions to the grand kids.

Example:
Grandparent has $10m in assets.

If they give the it all to the Parent anything over 5 million is taxed at a high rate. It will be taxed again when the Parent gives it to the Grandkid.

If they give $5M to Parent and $5M to the Grandkid. When the Parent dies they've avoided paying the death tax twice on the original wealth.

At least... I believe that's how that works.

Nope, it's the total size of the estate that triggers the federal estate tax. Doesn't matter if it's left to one heir or fifty. A co (mon strategy, however, is to give tax-free gifts to everyone before death to reduce the size of the estate. Obviously that only works if you have liquid-ish assets to gift. Not practical for estates where the main source of wealth is from a primary residence.

[gaja]

DH's grandmother distributed most of her money while she was alive, and gave each of the grandkids the same amount. Each of the kids also got something (don't know how much). Her reasoning was based on her knowing, loving, and having a relationship with each of the family members, not on complicated math.

[Cyaphas]

As for skipping generations when dolling out inheritance. My parent's and their siblings have all managed to blow through hundreds of thousands in inheritance, we're talking really stupid materialism, and when they all die won't leave much. It doesn't bother me, but from a neutral point of view it seems kind of a shitty thing to do.

The reason very wealthy skip generations? If the estate is large enough ($5 million+ in the US?,) you can avoid transfers of wealth being taxed on death by willing portions to the grand kids.

Example:
Grandparent has $10m in assets.

If they give the it all to the Parent anything over 5 million is taxed at a high rate. It will be taxed again when the Parent gives it to the Grandkid.

If they give $5M to Parent and $5M to the Grandkid. When the Parent dies they've avoided paying the death tax twice on the original wealth.

At least... I believe that's how that works.

Nope, it's the total size of the estate that triggers the federal estate tax. Doesn't matter if it's left to one heir or fifty. A co (mon strategy, however, is to give tax-free gifts to everyone before death to reduce the size of the estate. Obviously that only works if you have liquid-ish assets to gift. Not practical for estates where the main source of wealth is from a primary residence.

It's the transfer of the wealth from the Parent to the Grandkid when the Parent dies, that they'd be avoiding the taxes on. Not the initial estate distribution from the Grandparent. I wish I could be more clear on my example but I'm sick and tired. I'll hopefully be off in dreamland shortly.

[Paul der Krake]

As for skipping generations when dolling out inheritance. My parent's and their siblings have all managed to blow through hundreds of thousands in inheritance, we're talking really stupid materialism, and when they all die won't leave much. It doesn't bother me, but from a neutral point of view it seems kind of a shitty thing to do.

The reason very wealthy skip generations? If the estate is large enough ($5 million+ in the US?,) you can avoid transfers of wealth being taxed on death by willing portions to the grand kids.

Example:
Grandparent has $10m in assets.

If they give the it all to the Parent anything over 5 million is taxed at a high rate. It will be taxed again when the Parent gives it to the Grandkid.

If they give $5M to Parent and $5M to the Grandkid. When the Parent dies they've avoided paying the death tax twice on the original wealth.

At least... I believe that's how that works.

Nope, it's the total size of the estate that triggers the federal estate tax. Doesn't matter if it's left to one heir or fifty. A co (mon strategy, however, is to give tax-free gifts to everyone before death to reduce the size of the estate. Obviously that only works if you have liquid-ish assets to gift. Not practical for estates where the main source of wealth is from a primary residence.

It's the transfer of the wealth from the Parent to the Grandkid when the Parent dies, that they'd be avoiding the taxes on. Not the initial estate distribution from the Grandparent. I wish I could be more clear on my example but I'm sick and tired. I'll hopefully be off in dreamland shortly.

Gotcha. I see the reasoning now.

[BTDretire]

Oh good, a place to rant. :-)
  Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
 She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings. 
 After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
 Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
 The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh!  Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
  From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
 Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
 During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
 OK, rant over.

No, actually, it doesn't. She may have had the right to access it, but she didn't have the right to steal it. The estate didn't go through probate, and it's not legally "her" house even though she's living in it. I recommend you see a good estate lawyer who may also recommend filing a criminal complaint.

The lawyer that settled the estate said, the bank account was hers. Her name on the account, her money. As for the house, I still own 1/2 of it, yes, I could force a sale and get her out and end up with $25k or $30k. Then my sister who has nothing , (by her own choices) will not even have a home to live in. She has spent time living in a van with her girlfriend.
  On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
  I have thought about forcing it to go to my heirs when she dies, but it my just be a nuisance
for them to have a property 1000+ miles away.
 

[SwordGuy]

  On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.

It doesn't sound like she is ever going to change.   I would give her a quit-claim deed and be done with it.

That also protects you if she gets a scuzzy boyfriend who gets doped up, trips and injures himself.  You won't be  the deep pockets on the deed to sue.

[Spork]

Careful, having few or no siblings cuts both ways especially when the parents start getting older.  When the parents need help there is no dividing the costs (time and monetary) up among many siblings.  Just because they were an only child does not guarantee they got more resources growing up.

Actually, I think skipping the children's generation and dividing directly into grandkids is odd.  But I do think it is fair to divide whatever you are going to leave specifically to grandkids evenly among grandkids.  Those children themselves will receive a greater or smaller inheritance from their OWN parents based on sibling number.

Why WOULD you skip the children, especially if they will need help in retirement?  If they absolutely need no help (multimillionaires), then why would the single grandkid need more money than the multiple cousins?

Currently ongoing example in my family.  Judge for yourself it if was the right or wrong thing.  It is causing a little bit of conflict so far... unknown how it will end.

Mom/Dad had 3 kids.  One of them has a long history of substance abuse and a long history of spending more than she makes.  Any amount of money that comes her way is soon zero.  She is estranged from her adult kids.  Dad split it 1/3, 1/3 for 2 of the siblings.  But for the kid with substance/money abuse, he split her share evenly between her and her children.  I.e: 1/3, 1/3, 1/9, 1/9, 1/9.

His reasoning was that her kids would never see a dime of it.

The unfortunate side of this is that he never told her and never left any message telling her why.  He just did it and said it was going to be our problem when he died.

[Megma]

Yeah I'm the only responsible kid in my family and a few years ago my dad took me to the bank and put my name on all of his accounts and made me sole beneficiary of his retirement accounts...my siblings don't know and are gonna be so pissed.

I've told him several times this is a bad idea and to make an official will but he seems to forever to pass the buck to me and let me figure it all out. Thanks dad! He's still pretty young so maybe he'll change it.

[Kitsune]

Yeah, both my parents have me as the responsible person in case of inaptitude, as the executor of their will, the main person responsible for their life insurance,  and as the generally responsible person should anything happen to them.

Fortunately, they have separate bank accounts... Because they are still married.mto each other.

I've been hassling each of them to tell the other, but no idea if they have. THATS gonna go well...

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Oh good, a place to rant. :-)
  Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
 She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings. 
 After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
 Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
 The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh!  Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
  From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
 Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
 During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
 OK, rant over.

No, actually, it doesn't. She may have had the right to access it, but she didn't have the right to steal it. The estate didn't go through probate, and it's not legally "her" house even though she's living in it. I recommend you see a good estate lawyer who may also recommend filing a criminal complaint.

The lawyer that settled the estate said, the bank account was hers. Her name on the account, her money. As for the house, I still own 1/2 of it, yes, I could force a sale and get her out and end up with $25k or $30k. Then my sister who has nothing , (by her own choices) will not even have a home to live in. She has spent time living in a van with her girlfriend.
  On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
  I have thought about forcing it to go to my heirs when she dies, but it my just be a nuisance
for them to have a property 1000+ miles away.
 

Just having power of attorney over an account doesn't make the money hers. Unless they actually made it a joint account?

You may be able to solve the house problem by writing out a zero-interest mortgage for your share of the equity. She will now have control of 100% of the inheritance (which should thrill her since she's a dirty thief). But the house can't be sold without you getting paid off. Also, since you would no longer be the owner of the house, just the mortgage holder, you're not liable if someone trips on the sidewalk and sues.

[coolistdude]

This is the best thread to binge read.

[Tjat]

No real drama here, just wall of shame material. My grandparents passed away and distributed their estate of approximately $300k equally to their 4 children. One of them who is woefully inept with money decided to "retire" after receiving this "life changing amount" ($75,000). He left a pretty decent custodial job and proceeded to buy a used motorhome and roadtrip south to Disney world, spent a few weeks, and road tripped to Disney Land. He then ran out of money, sold the motorhome, and had to buy a minivan to drive back in. He now commutes 45 minutes to work in a toll booth.

[Nederstash]

No real drama here, just wall of shame material. My grandparents passed away and distributed their estate of approximately $300k equally to their 4 children. One of them who is woefully inept with money decided to "retire" after receiving this "life changing amount" ($75,000). He left a pretty decent custodial job and proceeded to buy a used motorhome and roadtrip south to Disney world, spent a few weeks, and road tripped to Disney Land. He then ran out of money, sold the motorhome, and had to buy a minivan to drive back in. He now commutes 45 minutes to work in a toll booth.

I cringed so hard I threw my back out.

[radram]

Qmavan - when you have 2 million(congrats on this), your money should me making $25,000 every 3 or 4 months.  Why in the world would you consume 4 YEARS of your life worrying about it? Would we consider this a reverse face punch?

Sign over your portion to your sister. Consider your mothers gift to you helping to prepare you for your success. That may have been by direct lessons from her, or just placing you in a place in your life to learn them much on your own. Your sister did not receive or accept  that lesson for some reason. Maybe your strength to move 1000 miles away led to your success?

In a few months when you have made the money back, you won't give it a second though. Your concerns for your sisters well being will of course continue indefinitely.

Let us know how it goes.

[coolistdude]

No real drama here, just wall of shame material. My grandparents passed away and distributed their estate of approximately $300k equally to their 4 children. One of them who is woefully inept with money decided to "retire" after receiving this "life changing amount" ($75,000). He left a pretty decent custodial job and proceeded to buy a used motorhome and roadtrip south to Disney world, spent a few weeks, and road tripped to Disney Land. He then ran out of money, sold the motorhome, and had to buy a minivan to drive back in. He now commutes 45 minutes to work in a toll booth.

*slow clap* People just are not taught to process anymore. My little kiddo is going to be annoyed at me making her process big decisions. "But dad, why can't I just do what I want like my other friends? They have all that they want!"

[Tjat]

No real drama here, just wall of shame material. My grandparents passed away and distributed their estate of approximately $300k equally to their 4 children. One of them who is woefully inept with money decided to "retire" after receiving this "life changing amount" ($75,000). He left a pretty decent custodial job and proceeded to buy a used motorhome and roadtrip south to Disney world, spent a few weeks, and road tripped to Disney Land. He then ran out of money, sold the motorhome, and had to buy a minivan to drive back in. He now commutes 45 minutes to work in a toll booth.

*slow clap* People just are not taught to process anymore. My little kiddo is going to be annoyed at me making her process big decisions. "But dad, why can't I just do what I want like my other friends? They have all that they want!"

Oh, this family is a treasure trove of wall of shame comedy (and seem to have an odd fetish with Disney). Here's one from an earlier thread...

I have an estranged Aunt and Uncle that took out credit cards to buy his & her compact VW Cabrio convertibles. They are both obese so they each needed their own, so everywhere they went, they drove their cars separately. I was 12 at the time and couldn't stop laughing when they tootled up to the house. Eventually they lost the cars to a title loan they had to take out so they could go on their annual trip to Disney World

[Dollar Slice]

I never really heard the whole story, but my brother recently came very close to losing the house they were supposed to close on slash move into the next day (or something similarly last-minute) because the people who had recently inherited that house decided to throw some kind of shit-fit. (They were selling it after their mother died and left the house to them.) My brother and his family were in a hotel because they hadn't been able to get the other people to agree to a closing date that would match up with the sale of their old house, even though no one was living in it. So they were basically about to be homeless because of these people having some kind of inheritance disagreement. (I have no idea if it's common for people to leave a week or two gap between houses, it seems kind of crazy to me... but that's another story.)

Apparently the real estate lawyer was in tears because of both the last-minute threats to cancel and also how nasty they were being about it. Happy ending for my brother and his family: things eventually went as planned. We will presumably never know about the almost certainly unhappy ending for the other family.

I cringed so hard I threw my back out.

Poor thing. Let me help you hobble over to the Mustachian People Problems thread where you can tell us all about your cringe-induced injury... ;-)

[Frankies Girl]

My MIL lusted after some generic antique furnishings from her inlaws the entire time she was married. We're not talking tens of thousands of dollars; just solid middle class stuff from the 1920s-1940s in middling condition. Nothing worth over 1k, and 90% of it just a few hundred apiece.

Once the final inlaw died, MIL bee-lined up to their house and scooped up everything and trucked it back to her house.

She had Polaroids of all of the furnishings and carried them around in her purse and would whip them out to show anybody she could get to stand still for 5 minutes: the mailman, the neighbor, the checkout clerk, the waiter... gloating over each one and would end with "and it's all MINE!" with a huge grin on her face. It was kind of sick and REALLY embarrassing when we happened to be with her.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Some states do have inheritance tax, which makes skipping a generation make more sense. But only if the immediate children are past childbearing age.

[Sibley]

Yeah, but do you then act all surprised more than 10 years later that someone has photos you don't have and ask for copies?

Yep, but that's part of the fun, I think.  I'm like you, I keep the stuff, organize it, keep it safe.  Then every few years, I surprise the hell out of someone by pulling out an old photo and emailing it, just for the hell of it.  It's great fun.

I wish it worked that way in my family. There's decades of bad history, and I am taking a perverse pleasure in having something that everyone else wants fully in my control. Teach you to exclude me and my sister from family activities...

[BTDretire]

Oh good, a place to rant. :-)
  Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
 She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings. 
 After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
 Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
 The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh!  Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
  From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
 Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
 During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
 OK, rant over.

No, actually, it doesn't. She may have had the right to access it, but she didn't have the right to steal it. The estate didn't go through probate, and it's not legally "her" house even though she's living in it. I recommend you see a good estate lawyer who may also recommend filing a criminal complaint.

The lawyer that settled the estate said, the bank account was hers. Her name on the account, her money. As for the house, I still own 1/2 of it, yes, I could force a sale and get her out and end up with $25k or $30k. Then my sister who has nothing , (by her own choices) will not even have a home to live in. She has spent time living in a van with her girlfriend.
  On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
  I have thought about forcing it to go to my heirs when she dies, but it my just be a nuisance
for them to have a property 1000+ miles away.
 

Just having power of attorney over an account doesn't make the money hers. Unless they actually made it a joint account?

 Joint account is how I understood it.

You may be able to solve the house problem by writing out a zero-interest mortgage for your share of the equity. She will now have control of 100% of the inheritance (which should thrill her since she's a dirty thief). But the house can't be sold without you getting paid off. Also, since you would no longer be the owner of the house, just the mortgage holder, you're not liable if someone trips on the sidewalk and sues.

Yes, to you and Swordguy, the liability has been a thought on my mind.

[zolotiyeruki]

When DW's great-grandparents passed away, there was lots of family strife.

So DW's grandparents have a clause in their will, basically stating, "If anyone complains or protests, they get nothing."

[BTDretire]

Qmavan - when you have 2 million(congrats on this), your money should me making $25,000 every 3 or 4 months.  Why in the world would you consume 4 YEARS of your life worrying about it? Would we consider this a reverse face punch?

That's a large exaggeration to say I would, "consume 4 YEARS of your life worrying about it"
I haven't. It has been my hope that she would get a job and be able to make a rent payment,
but that hasn't happened.

Sign over your portion to your sister. Consider your mothers gift to you helping to prepare you for your success. That may have been by direct lessons from her, or just placing you in a place in your life to learn them much on your own. Your sister did not receive or accept  that lesson for some reason. Maybe your strength to move 1000 miles away led to your success?

Don't know, she moved 250 miles away before 15 years before I moved 1000.

In a few months when you have made the money back, you won't give it a second though. Your concerns for your sisters well being will of course continue indefinitely.

Let us know how it goes.

We'll see, I know she has a limited time left in her job training program, maybe she will get serious about a job when it runs out.

[Papa Mustache]

We have a drama in progress.  DW's grandfather passed away recently.  Grandmother is still kicking at 90, but feeling old and alone.  Their plan had always been to split the estate evenly between DW's father and uncle, their two children.  Now, grandmother is thinking of leaving more to the uncle, "because he needs it more."

This is deepening a rift that started nearly fifty years ago when grandfather and grandmother paid for uncle's private college education, and then "didn't have enough" to pay for father's education, so he went to community college, and then on to finish up at the state school.  DW's father started bagging groceries after college, and then eventually landed a public sector union job.  Lots of hard and sometimes dangerous work, but through a long career, miserly frugality, and careful money management, DW's father amassed a nearly $2 million nest egg and DW's parents were able to retire in their mid to late fifties.

Meanwhile, DW's uncle worked in accounting, bought a nice house in the suburbs, furnished it respectably and impeccably, traveled to Hawaii regularly, and is still working in his early sixties.  But grandmother may now give uncle more "because he needs it more".

The thing I don't understand is how parents can be so obtuse with these things.  Can they not see the emotional damage they are wreaking?  I love what my mom and stepfather have done:  with my mom's two and my stepfather's three kids, they have said that they plan to split everything 5 ways.  Plain and simple.  If one goes before the other, I guess that could potentially change, but given who they are, how they live, and how generous and kind they are, I doubt it.  And if so, so what?  We are all grown ups and don't "deserve" anything.

Back to DW's grandfather, I hope we make it through the funeral this week without big drama.  There are already other issues surfacing about the remembrance video...

Parents can just be warped sometimes. No fix possible.

Best to just move on sometimes I think. I expect estate issues someday as supposedly I'm the executor of their will but I expect my parents to drift towards my out of state sibling in time. Absence makes the heart fonder and all that stuff.

My sibling is a snowflake. I'm the one that never quite meets their expectations. I can give you a dozen examples but you get the idea. I've heard a few lifetime long criticisms of their siblings who could never live up to my parents' expectations so is little doubt of our (myself and DW) position in my parents' minds.

We have a good marriage, good income, stable careers, etc. Good kids, good home, etc. We don't NEED them and that is likely a key problem. My sibling has relied on them for alot - funding, repairs, upgrades, etc. I was never given the same opportunities in the first place but I also recognized the baggage that came with that so I avoided asking them for anything in decades but their time - an opportunity to spend time with them. Nope - now that is in short supply and has been for years. Same with sibling. Yet parents can travel multiple states away and spend a week or more with sibling and family. We're closer on the map.

WTF??? I think DW and I understand the problem pretty well now and see that things will likely never change. Was painful when we didn't get it and were grasping at straws. My kids are noticing now as they get older. We've discussed it with them.

My parents have likely poisoned their relationships with our kids I fear. I just wanted my kids to have a similar positive relationship with our parents similar to the one that I had with my grandparents. Guess not.

[Papa Mustache]

DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.

This over and over and over... ;)

[Kitsune]

DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.

This over and over and over... ;)

This, 100%.

Or teachable moments for US. I've found such value in looking at people do things (usually things that start off smart and then just go downhill until you're like WTF what were you thinking??!) and swearing 'if it was me I wouldn't do that!!' and then like 6 months later I'm in a situation that I can see slipping down in the same way and I'm just like NOPE, see what happened to that person, you swore you wouldn't! And then I don't. Very educational!

[AMandM]

We have a good marriage, good income, stable careers, etc. Good kids, good home, etc. We don't NEED them and that is likely a key problem.

Some people's only way of relating to others is by helping them.  I have a relative like that.  If we say, "Wanna come have fun at the zoo with us and the kids Saturday?" she'd say no.  But if we said, "We want to go to the zoo but we can't handle all the kids.  Would you be able to come along to help us keep the toddlers safe?" she'd cancel a doctor's appointment and pack a picnic.  We joke that if she gets sent to Hell when she dies, she'll find out it's a spa.

[Apples]

DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.

This over and over and over... ;)

I'm a young adult who has mildly antimustachian family, and crazy insane antimustachian in-laws, and I thank my parents every day for being sensible people, and my dad for pointing things out and using them as "teachable moments".  Both to teach us better money  management and decision making, and as a "everyone is different, and you must treat them with respect, but don't do what they do!" moments. 

[mm1970]

  On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.

It doesn't sound like she is ever going to change.   I would give her a quit-claim deed and be done with it.

That also protects you if she gets a scuzzy boyfriend who gets doped up, trips and injures himself.  You won't be  the deep pockets on the deed to sue.

I agree.  Just give her your half and be done with it.

[mm1970]

My family was rural, poor, Catholic, and large.  At some point my grandfather and his brothers built a business.  While my mom was a child they were very poor, but they had enough money to send the youngest to trade school.

Eventually the business did well, and I'd say my grandparents were worth about a million, a lot of money in my home town.  One of my brothers was working the business also, so he got his inheritance (part of the business) while alive.  The trust/ will set up was to divide the money left in the business (when it was sold) between the boys.  The house (worth a lot less), would be sold and proceeds would go to the girls.

Well, my grandmother died in her early 60's, and my grandfather remarried within a year.  This caused a rift.  He traveled quite a bit with grandma, but that upset some aunts/ uncles with the new wife because he's spending their inheritance.  My grandpa worked very hard.  His new wife?  Raised 11 children essentially on her own and also worked very  hard. Wonderful woman (and my grandpa would not have done well single).

Anyway, my grandfather died in his 80's (17 years ago), and at that point, he'd been married to his second wife for more than 15 years.  After the funeral, my uncle called my mom (the executor) and wanted to know WHEN HE WAS GETTING HIS MONEY BECAUSE HE'S WAITED HIS WHOLE LIFE FOR HIS MONEY (probably $250k).  My grandpa was not even buried yet.

Here's the thing - the trust was set up so that his second wife could live off the interest of the trust - AND THE PRINCIPAL IF NECESSARY, until she dies.  She didn't really need much - she has a pension from working at the library while raising her family, plus social security.  When they married, she kept her house and eventually moved back into it.

Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago.  She's 97.  Still living.  AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt.  That uncle?  Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.

Sadly, this lovely step-grandmother of mine just passed last weekend.  She didn't outlive the nasty uncle, and the second nasty uncle and his wife.  She almost made it to 98.

I'd like to have more stories of how the distribution of the trust rolls out, but I live 2500 miles away.

Maybe my sister will give me the dirt if she hears it.

[Papa Mustache]

DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.

This over and over and over... ;)

I'm a young adult who has mildly antimustachian family, and crazy insane antimustachian in-laws, and I thank my parents every day for being sensible people, and my dad for pointing things out and using them as "teachable moments".  Both to teach us better money  management and decision making, and as a "everyone is different, and you must treat them with respect, but don't do what they do!" moments.

I'm teaching my kids b/c my parents didn't do enough to teach us about those occasions IMHO. That or I had a thick teenager skull back then and wasn't paying attention. ;)

Don't want our kids to stumble around for too long figuring out adulthood after they are out on their own. I made alot of expensive mistakes (relative to my then 80s minimum wage income) during that period. Wish MMM/Internet existed in the 80s... ;)

Had SO many questions back then - some really stupid too - and few people around me who had reliable answers because the subjects of money, income and a few others were secrets akin to secrets or gossiping. And you never (get caught) gossip(ing).

[Reynold]

  On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.

It doesn't sound like she is ever going to change.   I would give her a quit-claim deed and be done with it.

It also protects you if, as I have seen with a case involving my DW who was helping a poor, elderly friend, the house gets run down enough that it is condemned by the town, or even overgrown and they decide to mow the lawn.  If so, they will happily go after anyone else on the deed to bill for any expenses, at 100% if they can't collect from the indigent sister. 

And by the way, if you go the quit-claim route, don't just send it to her and be done.  If she was the kind of person who would go register it properly, she would probably have a job and be paying you rent.   Make sure of what needs to be filed with the town, county, whatever and make sure it gets done yourself. 

[Villanelle]

The posts about rationale for dividing up estates among differing generations and relationships were quite timely.  DH and I are doing our wills in a couple weeks and trying to figure out a plan, and we are disagreeing.

We have no kids, but we each having a living parent or parents (one of his and both of mine), one sibling each, and 2 niece/nephews on his side. 

A large % of the estate will go to a charity.  Easy.  He feels obligated to give something to the niece and nephew, not because he is close to them (we aren't close at all), but because he thinks it would be "weird not to".  I disagree.  I'm expecting (terrible word, but you hopefully know what I mean) nothing from any of aunts an uncles.  It doesn't seem abnormal at all not to send money that way, though admitedly they all have kids to leave things to and we don't.  These children are relative strangers to us, due to family drama, divorce, other messy things, and also to us living overseas for most of their lives thus far.  And because DH and his family have never been emotionally close to each other.

My solution is that of the non-charity money, we each "get" 50% to allocated as we see fit.  My parents have more money than they know what to do with.  My sister and BIL (no kids) are very well off, but somewhat spendypants.  I am sure they have savings and retirement so they are better off than most, but will probably not be able to RE, though my guess is that at ~60, they will have more than enough.  I'd leave them all of the "my side" money, because I don't know where else I'd send it and because Sister will be our executor and dealing with some of the ILs warrants some compensation beyond the typical executor fee.  ;)  He would likely leave some to his mom who makes very solid money, but also spends most or all of it, as far as we can tell and shows no signs of ever being able to retire.  Some would go to BIL, but for various reasons, leaving him large sums of money would be a bad idea,  and the rest of that "side" would go to niece and nephew.  DH can determine the %s as he sees fit.

My family will not care what we do. They are reasonable, sane people who are either great with money or at least not desperate or greedy.

Does this seem like a recipe for disaster?  It could see my sibling getting 50% of the non-charity portion, and DH's sibling only getting 20% (or some other amount <50%).  50/50 among them is a bad idea, and it doesn't allow DH to help his mom, which he'd like to do.  Leaving money to my parents to make it equal  to what goes to MIL would be weird and silly.  Thoughts?

[former player]

  Thoughts?

You don't mention this, but are you are each leaving enough money to maintain current living/retirement standards to the other in the first instance?  Another thing you don't mention is friends: I have some lifelong friends that I have left reasonably significant amounts to.

I hope it is unlikely that your DH's mother would survive him: if I were you I might be more worried about having to support his mother while you are both alive than after DH's death.

Any chance you could get to know DH's niece and nephew at some point?  Find out what they are like as people and whether or not you like them?

I don't see anything wrong with your proposed distribution among the family.  I wonder whether your concern is that BIL might react badly?  To which the only answer is: you will be dead enough not to care.  You can protect the executor by putting in a clause saying that anyone who contests the will gets nothing.

[mm1970]

My family was rural, poor, Catholic, and large.  At some point my grandfather and his brothers built a business.  While my mom was a child they were very poor, but they had enough money to send the youngest to trade school.

Eventually the business did well, and I'd say my grandparents were worth about a million, a lot of money in my home town.  One of my brothers was working the business also, so he got his inheritance (part of the business) while alive.  The trust/ will set up was to divide the money left in the business (when it was sold) between the boys.  The house (worth a lot less), would be sold and proceeds would go to the girls.

Well, my grandmother died in her early 60's, and my grandfather remarried within a year.  This caused a rift.  He traveled quite a bit with grandma, but that upset some aunts/ uncles with the new wife because he's spending their inheritance.  My grandpa worked very hard.  His new wife?  Raised 11 children essentially on her own and also worked very  hard. Wonderful woman (and my grandpa would not have done well single).

Anyway, my grandfather died in his 80's (17 years ago), and at that point, he'd been married to his second wife for more than 15 years.  After the funeral, my uncle called my mom (the executor) and wanted to know WHEN HE WAS GETTING HIS MONEY BECAUSE HE'S WAITED HIS WHOLE LIFE FOR HIS MONEY (probably $250k).  My grandpa was not even buried yet.

Here's the thing - the trust was set up so that his second wife could live off the interest of the trust - AND THE PRINCIPAL IF NECESSARY, until she dies.  She didn't really need much - she has a pension from working at the library while raising her family, plus social security.  When they married, she kept her house and eventually moved back into it.

Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago.  She's 97.  Still living.  AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt.  That uncle?  Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.

Sadly, this lovely step-grandmother of mine just passed last weekend.  She didn't outlive the nasty uncle, and the second nasty uncle and his wife.  She almost made it to 98.

I'd like to have more stories of how the distribution of the trust rolls out, but I live 2500 miles away.

Maybe my sister will give me the dirt if she hears it.

Sorry for you loss. And my further sympathies to the executor(s) of the trust and any further will.

I don't even know who the executor is, because when my grandpa died, it was my mom.  And my mom died 4 years ago.

[Villanelle]

  Thoughts?

You don't mention this, but are you are each leaving enough money to maintain current living/retirement standards to the other in the first instance?  Another thing you don't mention is friends: I have some lifelong friends that I have left reasonably significant amounts to.

I hope it is unlikely that your DH's mother would survive him: if I were you I might be more worried about having to support his mother while you are both alive than after DH's death.

Any chance you could get to know DH's niece and nephew at some point?  Find out what they are like as people and whether or not you like them?

I don't see anything wrong with your proposed distribution among the family.  I wonder whether your concern is that BIL might react badly?  To which the only answer is: you will be dead enough not to care.  You can protect the executor by putting in a clause saying that anyone who contests the will gets nothing.

I should have mentioned this in my post, but we'd be first leaving everything to each other, should one spouse outlive the other.  This is the back up to that, and the longer term plan.

Getting to know the N&N is not really possible.  BIL doesn't have an especially large role in their life for various reasons--some it fault and some not,-- though certainly he does seem them and presumably love them.   And we are about to move back overseas for 3 years, so there is little chance we'll see them at all during that time.   

I definitely do worry about MIL's financial situation, and I certainly hope DH and I outlive her, but I think he wants to include her lest that not happen. 

[TomTX]

Gosh I hope my parents live a long, long time.

I have the n'er do-well brother: Alcohol abuse, drug abuse, can't keep a job, indicted for hitting someone else's child, indicted for (briefly) taking a child of a former girlfriend (thankfully nothing abusive) etc. Extremely manupulative, entitled, et cetera. I don't see him much.

Parents keep bailing him out and paying for a lawyer. And they say they have taken him mostly out of the will. And keep a list of his debts to them for bailouts.

And I am the executor. Ugh. Drama is almost certain.

[Freedomin5]

I guess this is inheritance-related...

My cousin, who lives with my aunt, got married. She couldn't afford her own place, so my aunt bought a $2 million apartment for them. Oh, and then hired a maid to help them clean the place. But I digress.

The inheritance ridiculousness is that my aunt then promptly bought $2 million apartments for each my cousin's siblings because "it wouldn't be fair for my cousin to get a condo and for the others to get nothing". Did I mention that none of the siblings live in the country in which the condos were purchased? My aunt has already purchased for them condos in the respective cities in which they live, but not ones worth $2 million, so therefore, it is still unfair unless they all get condos that cost the same price in the same building.

Sometimes I just have to shake my head in disbelief...

[onlykelsey]

I guess this is inheritance-related...

My cousin, who lives with my aunt, got married. She couldn't afford her own place, so my aunt bought a $2 million apartment for them. Oh, and then hired a maid to help them clean the place. But I digress.

The inheritance ridiculousness is that my aunt then promptly bought $2 million apartments for each my cousin's siblings because "it wouldn't be fair for my cousin to get a condo and for the others to get nothing". Did I mention that none of the siblings live in the country in which the condos were purchased? My aunt has already purchased for them condos in the respective cities in which they live, but not ones worth $2 million, so therefore, it is still unfair unless they all get condos that cost the same price in the same building.

Sometimes I just have to shake my head in disbelief...

Holy crap.  Sometimes I get glimpses of this sort of wealth through my clients, but that is intense.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I guess this is inheritance-related...

My cousin, who lives with my aunt, got married. She couldn't afford her own place, so my aunt bought a $2 million apartment for them. Oh, and then hired a maid to help them clean the place. But I digress.

The inheritance ridiculousness is that my aunt then promptly bought $2 million apartments for each my cousin's siblings because "it wouldn't be fair for my cousin to get a condo and for the others to get nothing". Did I mention that none of the siblings live in the country in which the condos were purchased? My aunt has already purchased for them condos in the respective cities in which they live, but not ones worth $2 million, so therefore, it is still unfair unless they all get condos that cost the same price in the same building.

Sometimes I just have to shake my head in disbelief...

Holy crap.  Sometimes I get glimpses of this sort of wealth through my clients, but that is intense.

And, it's extremely unlikely the wealth will survive into the next generation. We've all read Stanley and Danko's chapter on Economic Outpatient Care and its effects on asset accumulation.

[CindyBS]

Thoughts?

I think all non-charity money should go in a trust to take care of MIL, then a plan to distribute from there.  She could be quite old and unable to work, while nieces and nephews who are presumably able to work, would get the money.

I had 2 relatives who did not have children and left some of their estate to me, and IMO, although I loved getting the money, I think it was ultimately the wrong decision and it should not have been left to my generation.

Scenario 1) Dad's brother dies at age 53, no kids - splits his estate among his 6 nieces and nephews.  I am one of them and 4 of the cousins are from my fathers other brother (3 brothers total).

Fortunately, it ended very amicably, but my uncle (P) had inherited some very sentimental items when my grandmother died.  My cousin, who was 25 at the time, wanted some of them.  He had never even met the grandmother b/c she died young.  My dad was legally entitled to absolutely nothing - no money, no belongings.   My cousin was ok with my dad taking them, but could have caused a real stink.  My dad also had to help break up the estate, get the house ready to sell, etc. and since most of us were still teenagers or kids - we couldn't do much to help.  My dad got exactly $0 for all his work, all though he did get some items.  I didn't think that was right.

Scenario 2) great aunt didn't have children.  My parents literally spent decades with some sort of level of care for her including things like bill management and at the end of her life she got dementia and my mother had to do all sorts of medical decisions on her behalf, file tax returns, etc.   She split her estate 8 ways, including with the great nieces and nephews.  So for her decades of (uncompensated) work, my mom got the same amount of money as my cousin who never saw her or took care of her.  I didn't think that was right either. 

IMO - siblings or direct children should inherit money from the generation above, then let them decide how to pass it on.  Younger people have time on their sides - older people do not.

[With This Herring]

  Thoughts?

You don't mention this, but are you are each leaving enough money to maintain current living/retirement standards to the other in the first instance?  Another thing you don't mention is friends: I have some lifelong friends that I have left reasonably significant amounts to.

I hope it is unlikely that your DH's mother would survive him: if I were you I might be more worried about having to support his mother while you are both alive than after DH's death.

Any chance you could get to know DH's niece and nephew at some point?  Find out what they are like as people and whether or not you like them?

I don't see anything wrong with your proposed distribution among the family.  I wonder whether your concern is that BIL might react badly?  To which the only answer is: you will be dead enough not to care.  You can protect the executor by putting in a clause saying that anyone who contests the will gets nothing.

I should have mentioned this in my post, but we'd be first leaving everything to each other, should one spouse outlive the other.  This is the back up to that, and the longer term plan.

Getting to know the N&N is not really possible.  BIL doesn't have an especially large role in their life for various reasons--some it fault and some not,-- though certainly he does seem them and presumably love them.   And we are about to move back overseas for 3 years, so there is little chance we'll see them at all during that time.   

I definitely do worry about MIL's financial situation, and I certainly hope DH and I outlive her, but I think he wants to include her lest that not happen.

May I make a suggestion?  First, leave your money to each other.  Then, leave it to any children you have, including natural, adopted, or of which you are the primary caretakers.  You may not have kids now or ever intend to have them, but just in case you end up taking over care of a friend's or relative's kids or some other surprise life circumstance comes up, you would want that in place.

[plainjane]

Apparently Prince died without a will.  I anticipate inheritance drama.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/prince-no-will/