Inheritance Drama: You Got Any? Stories Wanted.

[ysette9]

I have a drama that I can laugh at now but not so much at the time.  In 2014, my grandmother and mother died within 2 weeks of each other.  Shortly before she died, my grandmother had a come-to-Jesus with herself about the irresponsibility of her son, my stepfather.  She split her substantial estate into two parts: 50% directly to her daughter, who is very responsible and spent 10 years taking care of Grandma and Grandpa's financial affairs etc. long story.  50% in a spendthrift trust to my stepfather--he only gets the income, the principal is split between his kids (including the stepkids, which was nice of her--these folks really are my family, my mom and stepfather were together starting from when I was about 4) when the time comes.  The irresponsibility relates to his lifetime of drug and alcohol abuse that made my childhood and a substantial part of my adulthood hell.

Stepdad didn't take it well.  He actually called me (the judgmental one, ha ha) on the phone and said, and I quote, "IT SHOULD BE MY MONEY. IF I WANT TO SPEND IT ALL ON HOOKERS AND BLOW, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT."

Me: "Uh, you literally could have called any of the other 7 billion people on the planet and received a more sympathetic hearing than you're getting from me, bub.

Also, he's now harassing my aunt (the trustee!  lucky lucky her!) because he wants 200K of the principal to pay off his back taxes in a house he and my mom destroyed through animal hoarding and is 500 miles from where he now resides. 

And that's why I moved to another continent.

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

[partgypsy]

I feel bad for the trustee but he should be happy he gets anything at all. I think there should be a clause if he contests any part of the arrangement, he gets NOTHING. That's what I would do in that situation.

[ysette9]

I feel bad for the trustee but he should be happy he gets anything at all. I think there should be a clause if he contests any part of the arrangement, he gets NOTHING. That's what I would do in that situation.

We just signed trust paperwork last week and there is language like that in there. It was pretty incredible actually. Not only do you get nothing if you contest but it is as though you pre-deceased us with no issue, meaning that the offspring of the person contesting get nothing either.

[talltexan]

I'm not an attorney, but I do not understand how a clause withdrawing any distribution that is triggered by contesting the will is conscionable.

[Captain FIRE]

Really?  Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves).  How is that conscionable?  So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.

In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate.  Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated.  (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)

[GreenEggs]

Really?  Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves).  How is that conscionable?  So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.

In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate.  Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated.  (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)

That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son. 


This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad.  He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money.  Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.


There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares. 

[Psychstache]

Really?  Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves).  How is that conscionable?  So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.

In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate.  Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated.  (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)

That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son. 


This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad.  He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money.  Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.


There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares.

Probably an urban legend, but a friend once told me a story about a relative who wanted to disinherit a couple of kids due to their greedy, irresponsible financial ways, but still leave things to others. To not make it look like they were being left out unintentionally, the will stated "To [list of people being disinherited], I leave for each of you $1, so that you may someday learn it's value."

Sick burn from beyond the grave.[/list]

[Captain FIRE]

Really?  Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves).  How is that conscionable?  So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.

In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate.  Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated.  (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)

That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son. 


This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad.  He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money.  Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.


There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares.

Probably an urban legend, but a friend once told me a story about a relative who wanted to disinherit a couple of kids due to their greedy, irresponsible financial ways, but still leave things to others. To not make it look like they were being left out unintentionally, the will stated "To [list of people being disinherited], I leave for each of you $1, so that you may someday learn it's value."

Sick burn from beyond the grave.[/list]

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

[BeanCounter]

Really?  Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves).  How is that conscionable?  So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.

In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate.  Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated.  (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)

That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son. 


This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad.  He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money.  Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.


There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares.

I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.

[TVRodriguez]

I'm not an attorney, but I do not understand how a clause withdrawing any distribution that is triggered by contesting the will is conscionable.

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

[haflander]

I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.

Um...because the $ will be better spent by a reasonable and responsible person instead of wasted? If I end up old and with $, you can be damn sure I wouldn't give it to the person I know will waste it. That $ can do so much more for the frugal and investing person, the ones who took after their old man. I'd rather my frugal kid buy a rental or pay for the grandkids' school vs the wasteful kid spending it all on hookers and blow.

As others have said above, whatever an old person wants to do with their hard-earned $ is their choice. No one deserves anything. I also like the idea of cutting someone out if they contest the will. You don't deserve it in the first place, it's not your $...so if you contest, you get what you actually deserve, which is zero :)

[Dicey]

Funny, I was single until late in life. All along, I had named my siblings as equal benefactors. When my parents died, they pulled some shit. One in particular. Surprisingly, the others backed her. Sucks for them. After a lot of careful thought, they will receive very significantly reduced gifts. And the black sheep? Sucks more for her. The amount she stole from our parents while they were alive and shystered after they were gone just might be about the same (or less) than what she would have received from my estate.

Oh, and her lion's share of my parent's estate? Presumably gone. She recently hit up a wealthy relative for $1500. Against firmly worded advice, the relative made the "loan". Black sheep subsequently received about twice that when a small payout was received from the estate. She did not repay the relative's loan. Now the relative is complaining plaintively to the very people who strongly advised her against making the loan. What? La la la, I can't hear you.

[honeybbq]

Really?  Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves).  How is that conscionable?  So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.

In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate.  Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated.  (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)

That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son. 


This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad.  He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money.  Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.


There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares.

I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.

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

[DeniseNJ]

I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.

Um...because the $ will be better spent by a reasonable and responsible person instead of wasted? If I end up old and with $, you can be damn sure I wouldn't give it to the person I know will waste it. That $ can do so much more for the frugal and investing person, the ones who took after their old man. I'd rather my frugal kid buy a rental or pay for the grandkids' school vs the wasteful kid spending it all on hookers and blow.

As others have said above, whatever an old person wants to do with their hard-earned $ is their choice. No one deserves anything. I also like the idea of cutting someone out if they contest the will. You don't deserve it in the first place, it's not your $...so if you contest, you get what you actually deserve, which is zero :)

Disagree.  The reason I wouldn't give money to my kid who will spend it all on magic beans is not bc I care about the money; it's bc I care about my kid who I fear might blow it all and end up broke.  This is not my situation but if I was worried about one kid whether he's physically, mentally, emotionally, or psychiatrically disabled or a jerk or just irresponsible or gullible or immature or naive, then I can see setting up a trust or something that let's him have a bit at a time or whatever.  I persoanlly would leave it all equal with istructions as to what I think they should do with it but will also spend my time before I die trying to teach them the MMM lessons.  I might just refer them to this site in my will!

[Dicey]

I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.

Um...because the $ will be better spent by a reasonable and responsible person instead of wasted? If I end up old and with $, you can be damn sure I wouldn't give it to the person I know will waste it. That $ can do so much more for the frugal and investing person, the ones who took after their old man. I'd rather my frugal kid buy a rental or pay for the grandkids' school vs the wasteful kid spending it all on hookers and blow.

As others have said above, whatever an old person wants to do with their hard-earned $ is their choice. No one deserves anything. I also like the idea of cutting someone out if they contest the will. You don't deserve it in the first place, it's not your $...so if you contest, you get what you actually deserve, which is zero :)

Disagree.  The reason I wouldn't give money to my kid who will spend it all on magic beans is not bc I care about the money; it's bc I care about my kid who I fear might blow it all and end up broke.  This is not my situation but if I was worried about one kid whether he's physically, mentally, emotionally, or psychiatrically disabled or a jerk or just irresponsible or gullible or immature or naive, then I can see setting up a trust or something that let's him have a bit at a time or whatever.  I persoanlly would leave it all equal with istructions as to what I think they should do with it but will also spend my time before I die trying to teach them the MMM lessons. I might just refer them to this site in my will!

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

[BeanCounter]

I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.

Um...because the $ will be better spent by a reasonable and responsible person instead of wasted? If I end up old and with $, you can be damn sure I wouldn't give it to the person I know will waste it. That $ can do so much more for the frugal and investing person, the ones who took after their old man. I'd rather my frugal kid buy a rental or pay for the grandkids' school vs the wasteful kid spending it all on hookers and blow.

As others have said above, whatever an old person wants to do with their hard-earned $ is their choice. No one deserves anything. I also like the idea of cutting someone out if they contest the will. You don't deserve it in the first place, it's not your $...so if you contest, you get what you actually deserve, which is zero :)

Disagree.  The reason I wouldn't give money to my kid who will spend it all on magic beans is not bc I care about the money; it's bc I care about my kid who I fear might blow it all and end up broke.  This is not my situation but if I was worried about one kid whether he's physically, mentally, emotionally, or psychiatrically disabled or a jerk or just irresponsible or gullible or immature or naive, then I can see setting up a trust or something that let's him have a bit at a time or whatever.  I persoanlly would leave it all equal with istructions as to what I think they should do with it but will also spend my time before I die trying to teach them the MMM lessons.  I might just refer them to this site in my will!

Exactly. Why not give it equally and if you have one kid that you think might spend it all on hookers or blow, then put it in a trust so they can only spend the income and the principle can remain for generations.
I just don't get why anyone would want to hurt their child after they die by cutting them out. Not only that but it will put a huge strain on that kid and their siblings. So in trying to save your legacy from being wasted away, you just leave behind a wake of resentment and hurt. Sad.

[saguaro]

Funny, I was single until late in life. All along, I had named my siblings as equal benefactors. When my parents died, they pulled some shit. One in particular. Surprisingly, the others backed her. Sucks for them. After a lot of careful thought, they will receive very significantly reduced gifts. And the black sheep? Sucks more for her. The amount she stole from our parents while they were alive and shystered after they were gone just might be about the same (or less) than what she would have received from my estate.

Oh, and her lion's share of my parent's estate? Presumably gone. She recently hit up a wealthy relative for $1500. Against firmly worded advice, the relative made the "loan". Black sheep subsequently received about twice that when a small payout was received from the estate. She did not repay the relative's loan. Now the relative is complaining plaintively to the very people who strongly advised her against making the loan. What? La la la, I can't hear you.

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

[FIRE@50]

I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.

Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?

[ysette9]

I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.

Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?

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

[Dicey]

I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.

Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?

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

Damn, ysette! I'm having a rough morning dealing with our flip partner's BS, and this literally made me LOL. Thanks for lightening my mood. I needed that!

[Kitsune]

I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.

Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?

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

On the other hand, sometimes outsourcing to a qualified person gets the best result. Fortunately, in this case, the skills of amateurs do equal those of professionals, so it is possible to get excellent results with a relatively frugal attitude, and minor investment in basic equiment and hardware.

[SwordGuy]

I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.

Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?

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

Hard to be sure about that.

[ysette9]

I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.

Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?

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

On the other hand, sometimes outsourcing to a qualified person gets the best result. Fortunately, in this case, the skills of amateurs do equal those of professionals, so it is possible to get excellent results with a relatively frugal attitude, and minor investment in basic equiment and hardware.

Especially with what is available for free online nowadays, there is no excuse for not learning to do some things for yourself. And like they say, often times a home cooked meal is better than what you can get in a restaurant.

[ysette9]

I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.

Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?

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

Damn, ysette! I'm having a rough morning dealing with our flip partner's BS, and this literally made me LOL. Thanks for lightening my mood. I needed that!

I hope your day looks up

[GreenEggs]

I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.

Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?

Child molesters, wife beaters, and rapists are in a different category though. 


How do those types fit into anyone's inheritance planning?  Where's the "fair & equal" when demented actions are concerned?  Things like that tend to make a mess of the "fair & equal" equation. 


Blow & hookers aren't the worst things your heirs can get into. 

[Alfred J Quack]

Exactly. Why not give it equally and if you have one kid that you think might spend it all on hookers or blow, then put it in a trust so they can only spend the income and the principle can remain for generations.
I just don't get why anyone would want to hurt their child after they die by cutting them out. Not only that but it will put a huge strain on that kid and their siblings. So in trying to save your legacy from being wasted away, you just leave behind a wake of resentment and hurt. Sad.

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

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


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

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

[former player]

I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.

Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?

Child molesters, wife beaters, and rapists are in a different category though. 


How do those types fit into anyone's inheritance planning?  Where's the "fair & equal" when demented actions are concerned?  Things like that tend to make a mess of the "fair & equal" equation. 


Blow & hookers aren't the worst things your heirs can get into.

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

[Imma]

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

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

[UnleashHell]

I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.

what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?

[SwordGuy]

I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.

what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?

Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way.   Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.

The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.

That's my take on it.

[AMandM]

A lot of these stories seem to center on people who were mean or greedy or stupid before any inheritance, and the legacy was just a bigger field for them to play on.  Has anyone seen a family where everyone got along well, and you wouldn't expect drama, but things changed when an inheritance was involved?

[BeanCounter]

I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.

what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?

Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way.   Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.

The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.

That's my take on it.

[UnleashHell]

I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.

what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?

Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way.   Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.

The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.

That's my take on it.

thanks for the sweeping generalizations. in this case its my sister who stopped talking to me 20 years ago. my only regret is that it wasn't sooner. my parents lasted another ten years before she cut them off as well. The egregious final action that my parents did - went on holiday at christmas to FLorida to see their other grandchilden and didn't buy xmas presents for the grandkids in England. who were well past 18 an didn't ever send thanks for presents they'd received or ever visit. Literally the first words from my sisters mount upon their return - "where are the presents".  She's a disgrace who deserves everything she gets. which will be nothing.

[Captain FIRE]

I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.

what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?

Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way.   Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.

The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.

That's my take on it.

thanks for the sweeping generalizations. in this case its my sister who stopped talking to me 20 years ago. my only regret is that it wasn't sooner. my parents lasted another ten years before she cut them off as well. The egregious final action that my parents did - went on holiday at christmas to FLorida to see their other grandchilden and didn't buy xmas presents for the grandkids in England. who were well past 18 an didn't ever send thanks for presents they'd received or ever visit. Literally the first words from my sisters mount upon their return - "where are the presents".  She's a disgrace who deserves everything she gets. which will be nothing.

Yeah, holy moly on the assumptions.  Sometimes there's a reason someone stopped speaking to someone else, sometimes it's irrational.  Sometimes it's the person who was cut off, sometimes it's the one who did the cutting out and sometimes it's both.  There's no 99.9% repeating here for why.

I just learned yesterday that my aunt died 4 days prior from cancer.  Had no idea she had cancer, because my uncle stopped speaking to my dad 17 years ago around my grandfather's funeral.  He's never really said why, though when pressed early on, he did go off on a tirade apparently about not liking my mom's Christmas letters recounting the year's activities.   Such an egregious offense!  My grandmother likes to pretend that things are fine between them, so she has no idea why he stopped (and my dad is reluctant to put his nephew in the middle by asking him about it).  Uncle lives near grandma and we don't, so we're trying to figure out how to ensure we'll actually be notified when grandma passes so we can make it for the funeral, other than calling every day and panicking upon no response which seems overkill.  (Parents are going to talk to her neighbor and delicately to nephew.  If anyone else has suggestions, please share.)

[BabyShark]

I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.

what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?

Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way.   Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.

The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.

That's my take on it.

thanks for the sweeping generalizations. in this case its my sister who stopped talking to me 20 years ago. my only regret is that it wasn't sooner. my parents lasted another ten years before she cut them off as well. The egregious final action that my parents did - went on holiday at christmas to FLorida to see their other grandchilden and didn't buy xmas presents for the grandkids in England. who were well past 18 an didn't ever send thanks for presents they'd received or ever visit. Literally the first words from my sisters mount upon their return - "where are the presents".  She's a disgrace who deserves everything she gets. which will be nothing.

Yeah, holy moly on the assumptions.  Sometimes there's a reason someone stopped speaking to someone else, sometimes it's irrational.  Sometimes it's the person who was cut off, sometimes it's the one who did the cutting out and sometimes it's both.  There's no 99.9% repeating here for why.

I just learned yesterday that my aunt died 4 days prior from cancer.  Had no idea she had cancer, because my uncle stopped speaking to my dad 17 years ago around my grandfather's funeral.  He's never really said why, though when pressed early on, he did go off on a tirade apparently about not liking my mom's Christmas letters recounting the year's activities.   Such an egregious offense!  My grandmother likes to pretend that things are fine between them, so she has no idea why he stopped (and my dad is reluctant to put his nephew in the middle by asking him about it).  Uncle lives near grandma and we don't, so we're trying to figure out how to ensure we'll actually be notified when grandma passes so we can make it for the funeral, other than calling every day and panicking upon no response which seems overkill.  (Parents are going to talk to her neighbor and delicately to nephew.  If anyone else has suggestions, please share.)

What about you reaching out to your cousin to keep connected? Keeps him from having to feel like he's in the middle of his parents and yours.

[Captain FIRE]

What about you reaching out to your cousin to keep connected? Keeps him from having to feel like he's in the middle of his parents and yours.

Yeah I plan to reach out to him and should really do a better job staying in contact.  That said, we're not close - he's older than me so we never bonded growing up and we did not ever live near each other.  I was a bit closer to his younger brother, who passed away about 10 years ago.  My dad's kept in much better contact with my cousin over the years than I have.  (My dad tries to see my cousin every time he visits my grandma or is in his area, it's just that he tries really hard not to bring up his brother to make my cousin feel caught in the middle.) 

And, it's very clear my uncle isn't speaking to my dad, but the rest of the family is implicated as well.  (He's my godfather, but did not attend my wedding (or my brother's).) 

[Sibley]

Re the no contact situations - From the outside, you've really got no way to tell for sure what the issue is. It is quite interesting however that there's a group of situations that basically come down to someone is toxic/abusive/manipulative/generally nasty, so when the people around them eventually get tired of the abuse and cut them off, they say they have no idea why. Mental illness or personality disorders can be at play as well.

There's a website that has a lot of information about estranged parents, and is often recommended to people who are the victims in these types of situations. It's quite interesting.
http://www.issendai.com/index.htm

Out of the fog is also helpful for some people in or around toxic people.
https://outofthefog.website/

It's also important to note that people who have generally loving, non-abusive families and social circles frequently are unable (at least without a lot of thought) to understand that Sally didn't cut off her mother for no reason, and maybe Sally's mother is actually really abusive, even if they've never seen the behavior themselves. These bystanders can inadvertently cause a lot of problems, and can in turn be cut off by Sally in order to protect herself.

It can also explain why you'll see very interesting internet threads - as we've got going here. UnLeashHell appears to have experience with this type of dysfunction, or something similar, and responded based on that experience. Other posters have pushed back because of the broad and seemingly black and white generalization.

Bottom line - families come in every variety, good and bad. If you're dealing with one of the bad ones, maybe some of this info will. If you're not, a bit of compassion for those who are or may be isn't a bad thing.

[SwordGuy]

I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.

what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?

Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way.   Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.

The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.

That's my take on it.

thanks for the sweeping generalizations. in this case its my sister who stopped talking to me 20 years ago. my only regret is that it wasn't sooner. my parents lasted another ten years before she cut them off as well. The egregious final action that my parents did - went on holiday at christmas to FLorida to see their other grandchilden and didn't buy xmas presents for the grandkids in England. who were well past 18 an didn't ever send thanks for presents they'd received or ever visit. Literally the first words from my sisters mount upon their return - "where are the presents".  She's a disgrace who deserves everything she gets. which will be nothing.

And that would be the 0.000000000000000000000001% case. 

[DadJokes]

People don't act rationally. You can raise two children the exact same way in the exact same household under the exact same circumstances, and they will most likely grow up to be very different people. When a child goes down the wrong path, parents are going to "look in the mirror" and blame themselves, even if they did their jobs as parents correctly.

It is perfectly understandable to not leave equal shares to children if you believe that leaving money to someone will do them more harm than good.

@SwordGuy do you have children?

[BeanCounter]

Re the no contact situations - From the outside, you've really got no way to tell for sure what the issue is. It is quite interesting however that there's a group of situations that basically come down to someone is toxic/abusive/manipulative/generally nasty, so when the people around them eventually get tired of the abuse and cut them off, they say they have no idea why. Mental illness or personality disorders can be at play as well.

There's a website that has a lot of information about estranged parents, and is often recommended to people who are the victims in these types of situations. It's quite interesting.
http://www.issendai.com/index.htm

Out of the fog is also helpful for some people in or around toxic people.
https://outofthefog.website/

It's also important to note that people who have generally loving, non-abusive families and social circles frequently are unable (at least without a lot of thought) to understand that Sally didn't cut off her mother for no reason, and maybe Sally's mother is actually really abusive, even if they've never seen the behavior themselves. These bystanders can inadvertently cause a lot of problems, and can in turn be cut off by Sally in order to protect herself.

It can also explain why you'll see very interesting internet threads - as we've got going here. UnLeashHell appears to have experience with this type of dysfunction, or something similar, and responded based on that experience. Other posters have pushed back because of the broad and seemingly black and white generalization.

Bottom line - families come in every variety, good and bad. If you're dealing with one of the bad ones, maybe some of this info will. If you're not, a bit of compassion for those who are or may be isn't a bad thing.

+1
We are no contact with my mother in law. She is diagnosed boarder line PD, bi-polar and a touch of narcissism. If you know people like that, they just take, take, take. When their own children go against their requests they shame, belittle, demean. It's a no win.
So I have a very real view of what this kind of dysfunction looks like. But I still feel that cutting someone out of a will is wrong. If one of my children had these types of problems and we were in a dysfunctional relationship, yes I would go no contact but I would not cut them out of the will. When I am dead I want to do everything I can to make those that are still living have some sense of love and acceptance. It's only money, and I won't need it after I'm gone. And cutting out one child will just ensure that there will never be a good relationship between them and their sibs.
I would just explain to my other children that I appreciate all the "extra" they have given us, and to do what they need to do to care and protect themselves from their sibling. And I would tell them that even though they probably deserve more, we feel that inheritance is a birth right and we are splitting evenly no matter what. If I thought one child couldn't be trusted with money I would put it in the trust and just give them the annual income.

[SwordGuy]

People don't act rationally. You can raise two children the exact same way in the exact same household under the exact same circumstances, and they will most likely grow up to be very different people. When a child goes down the wrong path, parents are going to "look in the mirror" and blame themselves, even if they did their jobs as parents correctly.

It is perfectly understandable to not leave equal shares to children if you believe that leaving money to someone will do them more harm than good.

@SwordGuy do you have children?

I agree with everything you just said.


My point in the earlier post was that it is very rare for children to outright refuse to deal with their parents unless the parents have really acted up.   Lots of mooches.  Lots of dysfunctional family dynamics.  Lots of not going the extra mile to visit parents who are a nuisance.   But for a child to completely sever parental ties?  I don't think that's very common indeed when there's no good reason.   I've heard of many cases where children have done so because their parents are thieves, or addicts, or violent, or vicious, or controlling.   All perfectly good reasons.    Plenty of cases where the kid doesn't take any action to maintain contact but accepts parental contact.   But refusing to have contact with one's parents for no good reason?   That's a very drastic step with no rational benefit.   So, sure, crazy people might do it, but crazy people often need to mooch because they can't get other things in their life working either.

I'm not saying it happens.  I'm not disputing anyone's assertion that it happened in their family.   I'm just saying I think it's extremely rare.

And yes, I have children.   I have a wife with siblings.  3 in her family are great, 1 is a selfish, self-entitled ass -- who mooches off her parents.   I have lots of friends with siblings.    I watch and observe.  I listen and I read about other's stories.   

So, I'll readily admit that's all my opinion based on anecdotal evidence.   Sorry if the percentages to the ludicrous number of digits I listed didn't give that away. :)

[Villanelle]

Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.

Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting?  (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000?  Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity? 

[TheGrimSqueaker]

People don't act rationally. You can raise two children the exact same way in the exact same household under the exact same circumstances, and they will most likely grow up to be very different people. When a child goes down the wrong path, parents are going to "look in the mirror" and blame themselves, even if they did their jobs as parents correctly.

It is perfectly understandable to not leave equal shares to children if you believe that leaving money to someone will do them more harm than good.

@SwordGuy do you have children?

I agree with everything you just said.


My point in the earlier post was that it is very rare for children to outright refuse to deal with their parents unless the parents have really acted up.   Lots of mooches.  Lots of dysfunctional family dynamics.  Lots of not going the extra mile to visit parents who are a nuisance.   But for a child to completely sever parental ties?  I don't think that's very common indeed when there's no good reason.   I've heard of many cases where children have done so because their parents are thieves, or addicts, or violent, or vicious, or controlling.   All perfectly good reasons.    Plenty of cases where the kid doesn't take any action to maintain contact but accepts parental contact.   But refusing to have contact with one's parents for no good reason?   That's a very drastic step with no rational benefit.   So, sure, crazy people might do it, but crazy people often need to mooch because they can't get other things in their life working either.

I'm not saying it happens.  I'm not disputing anyone's assertion that it happened in their family.   I'm just saying I think it's extremely rare.

And yes, I have children.   I have a wife with siblings.  3 in her family are great, 1 is a selfish, self-entitled ass -- who mooches off her parents.   I have lots of friends with siblings.    I watch and observe.  I listen and I read about other's stories.   

So, I'll readily admit that's all my opinion based on anecdotal evidence.   Sorry if the percentages to the ludicrous number of digits I listed didn't give that away. :)

The cutting-off behavior is extremely common in families where there's addiction or abuse. In those families, people who behave badly are always entitled to the relationship and/or resources they want from the people they mistreat, no matter what. If you want to participate in family activities, you're required to (a) tolerate abuse, (b) not talk about it, and (c) help protect the person who's continuing to dish it out. Only the problem person's experience matters, and the rest of the family is so used to tiptoeing around the most dramatic and destructive individual that if someone on the receiving end of bad behavior dares to speak up or to protect himself/herself, that person is punished by being excluded from the family.

The other very common behavior is for the person who wants to live an abuse-free life to be the one to build some distance into the relationship. If the rest of the family tries to pressure the escapee to kowtow and to submit to more abuse, it's generally because every single person applying the pressure is in full flying monkey mode. Many of them like to feel like they are accomplishing something extremely good by reeling the escaped punching bag back in so that the toxic or abusive person can have another go. Others are tired of wiping the butt of whoever is screwing up, and realize that if they can bulldoze over the escapee's boundaries they can substitute the human escapee to be used as human toilet paper.

A third very common behavior is for someone to go into a snit and cut off friends or family members as a manipulation tool: "if you don't do this for me, or if you don't give me that, then you'll never see me again." My daughter was always cutting off friends or relatives to punish them for asserting their own boundaries. When she did it to me at age 18, I happily gave her all of her belongings and helped her move out, but her resolve to have nothing to do with me evaporated once she wanted money. There are lots of people who behave this way: when they well runs dry and they can't take anything more from you, or if you need something from them or are politely holding them accountable for their behavior, they find a reason to end contact until there's something else they want.

From the outside looking in, it can be extremely hard to tell whether the person ending the contact is the abusive or manipulative person. My general rule is to look at the person doing the cutting off. Do they have *any* old friends, family members, or community members with whom they are consistently in contact? If the answer is no, that person is likely to be the problem. Likewise, are they basically functioning or are they dependent on others? If they're dependent on others and are not consistently self-supporting, the isolated person has probably burned through a lot of other supporters and do-gooders before they got to you. There are bound to be mutual friends and acquaintances; asking around to see whether a person whose opinion and character you trust has been burned by that individual is often a good way to tell whether you should invite the exiled individual into your life.

[TVRodriguez]

Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.

Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting?  (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000?  Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?

Not in my state under a Will or Trust.  Beneficiaries have the right to receive a copy of the testamentary document and, if it's a Will being probated, they have the right to receive an Inventory of the estate.  If it's a trust, they have the right to an accounting, which will show all distributions and disbursements.

There are other ways to achieve this privacy you mention using non-probate or non-trust assets.  Make beneficiary designations on IRAs, bank accounts, life insurance, etc.  Separate beneficiaries on separate accounts usually don't have access to information on other accounts where they are not beneficiaries.

[kanga1622]

A lot of these stories seem to center on people who were mean or greedy or stupid before any inheritance, and the legacy was just a bigger field for them to play on.  Has anyone seen a family where everyone got along well, and you wouldn't expect drama, but things changed when an inheritance was involved?

My dad's family was a bit that way. He had one brother that was a bit greedy but he took it to the extreme after his parents passed. And then another brother's wife started to stir things up. It fragmented the siblings a bit but they were able to get over it and move on.

My siblings and I were VERY well organized and knew it was to be an even split. We were very congenial during all the meetings, lawyer visits, and text/email traffic on decisions. We have zero arguments about anything related to that process and know that our relationship is more important than any amount of money. We met the day after our dad's funeral to discuss our feelings. I said quite plainly that the only thing that mattered to me with the process is that we kept our relationship together. Everyone else agreed right away and that was forefront in our minds as we discussed anything.

[zolotiyeruki]

Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.

Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting?  (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000?  Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?

I don't know about the legal side of things, but secrecy is going to be hard to enforce, especially when A and B are individuals who likely have some connection to each other.  I suppose you could say "person A gets $25k and the remainder goes to Charity X," with instructions not to reveal what that remainder is, but I don't know that there's a way to make sure the executor doesn't reveal the amount, or to make sure Person A can't somehow get the info from the charity.

My siblings and I were VERY well organized and knew it was to be an even split. We were very congenial during all the meetings, lawyer visits, and text/email traffic on decisions. We have zero arguments about anything related to that process and know that our relationship is more important than any amount of money. We met the day after our dad's funeral to discuss our feelings. I said quite plainly that the only thing that mattered to me with the process is that we kept our relationship together. Everyone else agreed right away and that was forefront in our minds as we discussed anything.

That's fantastic that your family was able to handle it all so maturely.  I hope the same happens in my family when the time comes. 

[Dicey]

Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.

Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting?  (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000?  Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?

Yes. I had a friend who loaned me money, at his suggestion, when I was buying a house. He liked to make small loans to friends because he enjoyed having a steady stream of checks rolling in each month*. I'd been making payments as scheduled when he died**, about five years later. In his will, it just said he forgave any money he had loaned to me. Our mutual friend (and current flip partner, if anyone's following that adventure) was absolutely dying to know the value of his "gift", but I never told. After five years of payments, there wasn't much balance left, but I appreciated the clean slate. No way will I ever share the details with her. I think she expected more from his estate and imagines I sucked away some huge amount of cash. Nope.

*My friend wasn't stupid. The only condition of the loan was that I buy cheap term life insurance for 3x the loan amount, naming him as the beneficiary, until it was paid off. I gladly paid it until he passed away. Smart man. BTW, he knew how hard I was working to earn the money for the DP. He came to me with the offer; I was not seeking loans from anyone. I worked on commission, and he was my movie/theater buddy. About the third time I said no to a movie because I was working, he hatched this scheme. I knew he did it for others, some of whom had gone belly up and stiffed him. There was zero chance of that happening with me, so I said yes.

Gosh, I never realized this little tale might qualify as an inheritance drama story. Maybe to someone else, but not to me.

**My friend was considerably older, so his death was not unexpected. I worked every day, then spent the night on his tiny sofa every night for the last ten days of his life in case he needed anything during the night. Got up, went home, showered, went to work. I was on my way to his house after work when I got the call from our mutual friend that he had just died. I went straight there to say my goodbyes. Very surreal to spend time with the body of a loved one immediately after they've passed. Oh, I still miss him so! RIP, Waynn, with two N's and no E.

[TVRodriguez]

Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.

Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting?  (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000?  Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?

Yes. I had a friend who loaned me money, at his suggestion, when I was buying a house. He liked to make small loans to friends because he enjoyed having a steady stream of checks rolling in each month*. I'd been making payments as scheduled when he died**, about five years later. In his will, it just said he forgave any money he had loaned to me. Our mutual friend (and current flip partner, if anyone's following that adventure) was absolutely dying to know the value of his "gift", but I never told. After five years of payments, there wasn't much balance left, but I appreciated the clean slate. No way will I ever share the details with her. I think she expected more from his estate and imagines I sucked away some huge amount of cash. Nope.

*My friend wasn't stupid. The only condition of the loan was that I buy cheap term life insurance for 3x the loan amount, naming him as the beneficiary, until it was paid off. I gladly paid it until he passed away. Smart man. BTW, he knew how hard I was working to earn the money for the DP. He came to me with the offer; I was not seeking loans from anyone. I worked on commission, and he was my movie/theater buddy. About the third time I said no to a movie because I was working, he hatched this scheme. I knew he did it for others, some of whom had gone belly up and stiffed him. There was zero chance of that happening with me, so I said yes.

Gosh, I never realized this little tale might qualify as an inheritance drama story. Maybe to someone else, but not to me.

**My friend was considerably older, so his death was not unexpected. I worked every day, then spent the night on his tiny sofa every night for the last ten days of his life in case he needed anything during the night. Got up, went home, showered, went to work. I was on my way to his house after work when I got the call from our mutual friend that he had just died. I went straight there to say my goodbyes. Very surreal to spend time with the body of a loved one immediately after they've passed. Oh, I still miss him so! RIP, Waynn, with two N's and no E.

Where I practice, that loan/note would be an asset of the estate and would get listed on the Inventory, which is to be provided to every beneficiary under the Will (and any other interested party of the estate, including known creditors).

But that's a sweet story and a nice friendship you had.

[okits]

It's also important to note that people who have generally loving, non-abusive families and social circles frequently are unable (at least without a lot of thought) to understand that Sally didn't cut off her mother for no reason, and maybe Sally's mother is actually really abusive, even if they've never seen the behavior themselves.

From the outside looking in, it can be extremely hard to tell whether the person ending the contact is the abusive or manipulative person. My general rule is to look at the person doing the cutting off. Do they have *any* old friends, family members, or community members with whom they are consistently in contact? If the answer is no, that person is likely to be the problem. Likewise, are they basically functioning or are they dependent on others? If they're dependent on others and are not consistently self-supporting, the isolated person has probably burned through a lot of other supporters and do-gooders before they got to you. There are bound to be mutual friends and acquaintances; asking around to see whether a person whose opinion and character you trust has been burned by that individual is often a good way to tell whether you should invite the exiled individual into your life.

I have appreciated your (almost certainly hard-earned) insight, @Sibley and @TheGrimSqueaker .

I’m estranged from my sibling and have been estranged from my parents in the past (we have a guarded relationship now).  My parents see the estrangement of their children as a failure that reflects badly on them, and so really want to throw a bandaid on it (for appearances’ sake and to check that off their list).

About a year ago they approached me under the guise of “discussing their end-of-life arrangements”, but it was really an attempt to try to bribe me (with an eventual inheritance) into putting a bandaid onto that estrangement.  When I told them my children and I neither needed nor expected any inheritance they were furious.  (In hindsight I should have outright requested that nothing be left to us.  I guess I will should they ever bring this up again.) This episode pushed me to accept that in spite of all the excuses I make for them, my parents really do exhibit manipulative and controlling behaviour towards me (I already grasped that they treated me much more like a possession or an employee than like a person).  I was also really sad to realize they thought that I could be bought.  (I initiated those estrangements when I was young and alone and had not much safety margin to support myself.  If I wasn’t going to be manipulated in exchange for money then, why would I be now when I am older and have saved my own money and have my own family?)

Even just recounting that little episode feels gross.  🤮

[DaMa]

The cutting-off behavior is extremely common in families where there's addiction or abuse. In those families, people who behave badly are always entitled to the relationship and/or resources they want from the people they mistreat, no matter what. If you want to participate in family activities, you're required to (a) tolerate abuse, (b) not talk about it, and (c) help protect the person who's continuing to dish it out. Only the problem person's experience matters, and the rest of the family is so used to tiptoeing around the most dramatic and destructive individual that if someone on the receiving end of bad behavior dares to speak up or to protect himself/herself, that person is punished by being excluded from the family.

The other very common behavior is for the person who wants to live an abuse-free life to be the one to build some distance into the relationship. If the rest of the family tries to pressure the escapee to kowtow and to submit to more abuse, it's generally because every single person applying the pressure is in full flying monkey mode. Many of them like to feel like they are accomplishing something extremely good by reeling the escaped punching bag back in so that the toxic or abusive person can have another go. Others are tired of wiping the butt of whoever is screwing up, and realize that if they can bulldoze over the escapee's boundaries they can substitute the human escapee to be used as human toilet paper.

A third very common behavior is for someone to go into a snit and cut off friends or family members as a manipulation tool: "if you don't do this for me, or if you don't give me that, then you'll never see me again." My daughter was always cutting off friends or relatives to punish them for asserting their own boundaries. When she did it to me at age 18, I happily gave her all of her belongings and helped her move out, but her resolve to have nothing to do with me evaporated once she wanted money. There are lots of people who behave this way: when they well runs dry and they can't take anything more from you, or if you need something from them or are politely holding them accountable for their behavior, they find a reason to end contact until there's something else they want.

From the outside looking in, it can be extremely hard to tell whether the person ending the contact is the abusive or manipulative person. My general rule is to look at the person doing the cutting off. Do they have *any* old friends, family members, or community members with whom they are consistently in contact? If the answer is no, that person is likely to be the problem. Likewise, are they basically functioning or are they dependent on others? If they're dependent on others and are not consistently self-supporting, the isolated person has probably burned through a lot of other supporters and do-gooders before they got to you. There are bound to be mutual friends and acquaintances; asking around to see whether a person whose opinion and character you trust has been burned by that individual is often a good way to tell whether you should invite the exiled individual into your life.

You clearly know your stuff.  That is exactly my experience.  (1) My father is an alcoholic. (2) Having finally decided to let the distance increase, my mother is working overtime to defend and minimize my concerns.  (3) My father cut off all contact with his parents and brother when I was 12, separating me from family members that I loved.  (4) Father has no friends except some people he has known for less than two years.  Every friend he had that I knew eventually did or said something that pissed him off to the point of cutting them out.

My only brother has also distanced himself.  Addiction takes a terrible toll on families.