Blind equality in inheritance to siblings or not?

[grude]

This is not a real situation, I in fact expect no inheritance because my rents' have nothing to leave.

Lets say a parent has two children who are very different. One is a very successful business owner with a more than healthy financial situation, and one is very troubled and basically unemployable and dependent on the parent for housing and food despite being an adult.

Do you believe any inheritance left should be an equal split and ignore all the circumstances of the siblings?

[sahirrnee]

I think it should be even.

However if you ask my sister
When I was in the better financial position she would have said she should get more because she needed it.
Now that she is in the better financial position she says she should get more because I will just blow it on shit.
She will also tell you that since she has two kids and I have only one that she should get two thirds and I should only get a third, so when we leave our share to our kids all the grand kids get equal amounts. It's not fair for her kids to have to share half when my son gets a full half.

[JohnT]

Not at all - it's up to the parents as to how to distribute their estate.

The parents should act like adults and explain it to the kids prior to them finding out during the will reading, of course.

[snowthx]

Ugh. This happened to me and my brother after our father died last year. Not only were things unequal, they were seriously unbalanced. Dad mentioned to me a while ago that since I have a family and a job and responsibilities, and my brother does not, that I should get more after he is gone. I never explored that with him, and told him I expected him to enjoy his retirement and do not plan to leave anything for me. Turns out he did not have that same discussion with my bro, so once I learned the breakdown (and it was not a fortune), it fell to me to tell bro how it was divided. I had to try to explain it, I had to try to justify it, I had to speculate to my bro on why dad did it this way. That lead to more strife at a time I could not afford to deal with it so I simply said: "It was his choice" and left it there. As JohnT said - do not put the burden on the adult children to find out and try to understand it - tell them now!

Also, Dad's will did have a no-contest clause - if either party tried to contest anything in the will, they would get nothing. And, his retirement accounts transferred upon death to me and bro according to the breakdown, which evidently overrides the will. There was nothing either of us could do to change it.

I ended up adjusting things so bro got a larger cut. I did that more for me than anything else.

[TriPolar]

There's no reason a parent shouldn't consider need in dividing an inheritance. But you don't give everything to one child and not the other(s) unless you want create problems. Unless you're talking about disparate conditions between the siblings, an equal split is best. But that's money, property gets trickier. Make sure to leave things to all children and don't make them sell a house to divide it. Unless the parent wants to, after all it's their money and property.

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by sahirrnee

I think it should be even.

However if you ask my sister
When I was in the better financial position she would have said she should get more because she needed it.
Now that she is in the better financial position she says she should get more because I will just blow it on shit.
She will also tell you that since she has two kids and I have only one that she should get two thirds and I should only get a third, so when we leave our share to our kids all the grand kids get equal amounts. It's not fair for her kids to have to share half when my son gets a full half.

Your sister is an excellent example of why any inheritance for siblings should be an exact split amongst however many kids there are (no grandkids taken into account - parents can leave their own share for their own kids).

I fully expect my family to go into complete meltdown mode when my mom dies. I have two sisters and brothers-in-law who are reasonable, nice people, and one sister and brother-in-law who are, not to put too fine a point on it, assholes. I expect them to make a lot of trouble for all of us.

[lavenderviolet]

I'd split the money 50-50 in this hypothetical situation - at least if I assume that I have a good relationship with both of the heirs, and neither of them has a drug habit (since giving money to a drug addict is just enabling them).

The responsible one doesn't deserve to be "punished" by not getting an inheritance because his brother is a screw up. Hopefully the screw up would use his share of the money to try to get into a more stable situation before the money runs out. And hopefully I would have raised my kids to get along well enough that they would help each other out if one was in trouble.

[JohnT]

What we've done is set up a family trust and placed all assets in it. I'm typing this on my phone so I don't want to get into details, but for those of you facing this issue, this may be the way to go. Talk to your lawyer first, though - don't just buy some documents from legalzoom.com and fill them out.

[Red Wiggler]

Have each sibling write down what they think the split should be and then give each of them how much they wrote down as their sibling's share.

Joking, of course. With very few exceptions, e.g., when a family business is involved, the split should be even.

[j666]

One sibling lives rent free with the parent and holds dead-end jobs; the other succeeds in a demanding career.

One sibling accepts the responsibility of caring for the aging parents; the other puts all the effort into making money.

Who deserves the greater inheritance?

Is "troubled" a substance abuser, or autistic?

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Not at all - it's up to the parents as to how to distribute their estate.

The parents should act like adults and explain it to the kids prior to them finding out during the will reading, of course.

My mom died last year, and I'm the executor of her estate. Her will leaves the house to my brother, and everything else split 50-50. It even says that she's not playing favorites. On one of her retirement accounts, she put his name first under beneficiaries (making him the primary) and mine second; my brother inherited all of that.

He clearly needs it more than I do. He's older than I am, never moved out of her house, and never had a job beyond a paper route. This will probably last him until the day he dies. But I do wish she'd been more willing to talk about things like this when she was alive.

To answer the OP, everyone's needs and every situation are different. Leave the money however you want. But talk to your kids about it.

[Krokodil]

Even split. My father disinherited my brother (there are six of us), but everything was tied up until my mother died. Mom put my brother back into her will, after talking it over with my sisters. If she hadn't, he'd have had grounds to sue and tie up the estate for years, and we all needed the money NOW.

[PandaBear77]

Should be up to the parents. In Krokodil's situation I think her mom was smart.

My in law's are in a similar situation. Not that they have much to leave to their kids, but they've got MrPanda, the good kid, and then there's my brother in law, a deadbeat drug addict sociopath still living at home rent free who has caused them NO end of grief. In the state they live in the law doesn't allow completely disinheriting your kids, you have to leave them at least $100 ... last I heard that's how it's gonna break down, too.

I have one child. Everything goes to her unless she turns out like her uncle, in which case it'll go to charity or a favorite cousin or something. So far she's turning out fantastic though so no worries.

[Ken001]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Not at all - it's up to the parents as to how to distribute their estate.

The parents should act like adults and explain it to the kids prior to them finding out during the will reading, of course.

This is a complex subject in which I have experience. There are quite a few aspects to consider and each family is unique.

The starting point for the parents should be equal shares. If they have other intentions then they should spell that out. Eg. they've already given one child $50,000 to help buy a home whatever.

Many, in fact most parents find it very difficult to discuss their wills with their children. I recommend they do so but it isn't always possible.

[Ken001]

Originally Posted by JohnT

What we've done is set up a family trust and placed all assets in it. I'm typing this on my phone so I don't want to get into details, but for those of you facing this issue, this may be the way to go. Talk to your lawyer first, though - don't just buy some documents from legalzoom.com and fill them out.

Yes - exactly what I was about to suggest.

[Ken001]

Originally Posted by JohnT

it's up to the parents as to how to distribute their estate.

John's post is a useful example of how rational people in good health think about inheritance.

I have a close friend who said exactly this for many years, only to be shocked to the core to find she was the preferred beneficiary in her parent's will. She had expected an equal or much lesser share and instead found herself in conflict with her siblings because she got half of the estate. A tragedy but she averted it by sharing equally.

We need to appreciate that elderly people do not think rationally. Dementia, Alzheimer's etc they can lose their acuity and change their will in a bizarre fashion. The child who is nearest may be favoured or even more likely the far away children develop a golden aura and are bequeathed a disproportionate share.

I've seen it happen, gently argued with the testator, but often had to follow their instructions.

[even sven]

I think family money should be invested in getting as many family members as possible into a sustainable middle class situation as possible. It's not a right or a reward. It's a family wide investment.

[twickster]

My mother died without a will, so it was an even split to us three kids, which it would have been if she had a will.

When my father died, he was married to my stepmother, who chose not to give a dime to any of us, though there was apparently enough to give small ($5 or $10K) bequests to his alma mater and his (Quaker) meeting. I have no idea what the specifics of their financial situation were, but she had family money and he had been in a nursing home for five years, so I don't think we're talking large amounts and it was mostly her money.

In my brother-in-law's case, his parents jointly decided that he would get 2/3 of the estate, and his brother 1/3. This was in recognition of the fact that my BIL and my sister had done most of the emotional caretaking (the parents were in a retirement community and their practical needs were met) for the last ten years of their lives. The brother, who lived 3,000 miles away, was only in touch to ask for money -- including coming to his father's memorial service just to ask his mother when he'd be getting a check, and for how much. (He didn't come to his mother's service at all.) This split did not take grandkids into consideration: the brother and his wife have three kids, and my sister and BIL had none (after a series of ectopic pregnancies and other reproductive misadventures). I'm sure the brother considers this quite unfair -- he's pretty much the only one who does, though.

There is, of course, lots more to this story, but none of it reflects well on the brother, so I won't go into it.

[Hari Seldon]

My wife and I have discussed this very question and come to the conclusion that we leave equal shares. But we feel fairly confident that they will take the attitude that Cat Whisperer does. We have identical wills that first leave everything to the surviving spouse. After that everything is split evenly.

We have three children. One is a Microsoft millionaire and I expect he will forgo his share. If he doesn't, he doesn't, but that choice we leave to him. The second makes an excellent salary and is married to a physician. While I don't know for sure, I expect their joint income is in the neighborhood of $300-350 K. They live relatively modestly. The third is the one who may need the money. Although she and her husband are both well-employed and probably have a combined income pushing $200K, they are living in an apartment in Brooklyn and would love to buy something better, but they spend so much on daycare and rent that saving is hard. They are the ones who could most use the money. In addition, her husband's siblings are a problem. His sister is functional, but suffers depression, which makes it unlikely that the sister will be able to help out with their brother who is fairly profoundly retarded. So far, that brother still lives with the parents, but they are not getting younger and the father, who is self-employed is not too healthy and barely scratching out a living anyway. So my daughter knows that she and her husband will one day be responsible for the brother.

If I had my 'druthers, I would leave it all to my daughter. But I cannot see cutting off my sons. And I just cannot see discussing it with them. I have talked it over with friends who insist I must divide it equally. BTW, the amount is not huge. They say the house is worth $700K and we probably have about the same in brokerage accounts, but we gradually eat into them.

[Baker]

Stories like the ones here are why I give thanks to God that my sisters and I are on good terms. Also, my brothers-in-law are both good guys.(I'm single.)

I'm the oldest, and the executrix of their will, when the time comes. It will be a big PITA, but at least there won't be fighting over shares.

[kushiel]

I'm not sure how my parents have everything set up right now, but I think it might be slightly skewed in my favour. My brother has a 10 year start on me and a very good career, and he's always been the protective older brother. I don't think he'd be bitter if our parents gave me a little more because I'm the little girl of the family.

[sahirrnee]

My mother has a living trust. She told me what is in it, I know it's 50/50 between me and my sister.
There probably won't be anything left except the house, which is to be sold and proceeds split.
I know it will still be a fight.

My mothers bf wants to get married. She won't do it and part of that is the inheritance issues. She doesn't want her money going to his kids, or his money coming to us. I'm sure there are ways to keep that from happening.

[Campion]

I have a half brother is the "preferred" sibling in my parents' will, the theory being that because growing up he only got court-ordered child support while my full siblings got full-time dad, with access to all his income and attention, he should get a bit more.

While I agree that a 50-50 split is preferable, I do understand that there are situations that don't warrant it. One thing that would be an interesting solution to the OP is a 50-50 split, but in an incentive trust. In such a trust, depending on how it's set up, the trust pays out based on what the beneficiary earns. In other words, you turn in your pay stub and the trust matches it. Clearly, the working sibling would therefore draw down his share of the trust faster than the non-working sibling, but the point of it from the parents' perspective is to encourage the less motivated sibling to hustle a bit to get the money.

[PunditLisa]

Barring something extraordinary, such as an active drug addiction, I'd leave everything to my husband first, then to the children equally.

If one of my two daughters takes on more than her fair share of caring for me and my husband in our senior years, then I will reward her for that while I am alive, by either paying a portion of her mortgage (if I am living in her home) or just giving her an annual cash gift. But what is left in the trust when I die will be split 50/50. I would never think to penalize one daughter because she happened to be more successful.

BTW, my grandmother recently died and left my brother ~5 times more than she left the other 4 granddaughters. He kept the house she gave him (worth about $60k), but split the cash up evenly between all 5 grandchildren. It is exactly what I would have done, though I didn't expect anything at all.

[spanna]

Has anyone got thoughts on deceased siblings?

My wifes brother died a few years back, he was divorced with adult children.

I am aware that my wifes parents have a will that leaves the majority to her as the sole surviving child, with nominal named amounts to their grandchildren.

Will is quite specific as they were upset at how his children burned through their inheritance from their dead father.

Do you think deceased siblings can pass on an inheritance before they have lived to receive it?

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by spanna

Has anyone got thoughts on deceased siblings?

My wifes brother died a few years back, he was divorced with adult children.

I am aware that my wifes parents have a will that leaves the majority to her as the sole surviving child, with nominal named amounts to their grandchildren.

Will is quite specific as they were upset at how his children burned through their inheritance from their dead father.

Do you think deceased siblings can pass on an inheritance before they have lived to receive it?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking; your wife's parents are free to leave their assets to anyone they please - they don't have to consider anyone, and if they have a good reason to leave nothing to the grandkids, that's their prerogative. Are you asking if the adult children of the deceased sibling have some kind of right to inherit his share?

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

I believe that people can pass it on to their descendants any way they want to, or not at all.

[sahirrnee]

Originally Posted by spanna

Has anyone got thoughts on deceased siblings?

My wifes brother died a few years back, he was divorced with adult children.

I am aware that my wifes parents have a will that leaves the majority to her as the sole surviving child, with nominal named amounts to their grandchildren.

Will is quite specific as they were upset at how his children burned through their inheritance from their dead father.

Do you think deceased siblings can pass on an inheritance before they have lived to receive it?

I would expect that if my sister were to die before me that her daughters would split her share. I certainly wouldn't expect to get it, and if I did I would pass on her share to them.

[Chef Troy]

Originally Posted by spanna

Has anyone got thoughts on deceased siblings?

...

Do you think deceased siblings can pass on an inheritance before they have lived to receive it?

IANAL, but it seems to me that assets would only devolve to a deceased beneficiary's children if the will contains specific language directing the executor to do that.

[TreacherousCretin]

Originally Posted by Krokodil

Even split. My father disinherited my brother (there are six of us), but everything was tied up until my mother died. Mom put my brother back into her will, after talking it over with my sisters. If she hadn't, he'd have had grounds to sue and tie up the estate for years, and we all needed the money NOW.

My wife and I have separate wills with some significant differences in beneficiaries/amounts. If we die together, our estate (pretentious word for a house and a little money) is split down the middle. Half goes where I wanted it to, half goes to her choices.
Both wills contain an interesting clause: If one of us dies first, as is most likely, the survivor can't override or negate the other's wishes. Half of the estate (as it was at the time of the first death) will always be distributed as if we had died together. Any contestors are automatically thrown out.

By the way, we never had children. We just wanted to protect each other's interests.

[ZPG Zealot]

I think the behavior and the amount of time an adult children has invested in their parents' lives should be an important factor in inheritance. I have a friend currently at war with her brothers because she inherited over 90% of their late parents' considerable assets. The brothers lived across the country, maybe seeing the parents once a year. For the last seven and ten years of their lives her father and mother lived in her guest house with her seeing them almost everyday and attending to their needs. The daughter definitely deserves her vastly larger inheritance.

[PunditLisa]

Originally Posted by TreacherousCretin

My wife and I have separate wills with some significant differences in beneficiaries/amounts. If we die together, our estate (pretentious word for a house and a little money) is split down the middle. Half goes where I wanted it to, half goes to her choices.
Both wills contain an interesting clause: If one of us dies first, as is most likely, the survivor can't override or negate the other's wishes. Half of the estate (as it was at the time of the first death) will always be distributed as if we had died together.

I assume that you created a trust as well, because I don't think you can pull that off without creating one. Trusts are one of the few instances where the courts allow a person to speak from the grave. IANAL, and maybe a real lawyer can chime in here, but unless you have a LOT of money, I'd take out that interesting clause. Why?

Most property bought by married couples is deeded with survivorship benefits. If one spouse dies, the other's interest automatically balloons to 100%, no probate necessary, which means that it is excluded from the will. Also, unless you named your trust as primary beneficiary on vehicles such as life insurance policies, stock market accounts, etc., whomever you named as beneficiary (probably your spouse) will get those proceeds.

If that is the bulk of your "estate" then why not have your wishes carried out immediately, and disburse what remains via a simple will? Give your long-lost cousin, Albert, his windfall right away? It's certainly the less complicated, less costly, route.

If you don't want to do this because you want your widowed wife to have access to the money while he/she is alive, then why not just give her the money outright and trust that she'll honor your memory?

Because otherwise, in order to execute your wishes upon her death, yet still allow her access to the funds while she's alive, I see no other choice but to put those assets into a trust. You'd have to put in language allowing her to borrow from the trust, with the provision that she repay the funds upon her death so that your final instructions can be carried out. Which risks her not having enough money left to repay the trust when she dies, which would render the entire trust pointless. Not to mention that your cousin, Albert, might be long dead by the time your wife dies. Then what?

[Ken001]

Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan

I believe that people can pass it on to their descendants any way they want to, or not at all.

In a perfect world yes, but see below.

Originally Posted by ZPG Zealot

I think the behavior and the amount of time an adult children has invested in their parents' lives should be an important factor in inheritance. I have a friend currently at war with her brothers because she inherited over 90% of their late parents' considerable assets. The brothers lived across the country, maybe seeing the parents once a year. For the last seven and ten years of their lives her father and mother lived in her guest house with her seeing them almost everyday and attending to their needs. The daughter definitely deserves her vastly larger inheritance.

Agreed and this often happens. In many families such dedication by one child is appreciated and understood as properly recognised.

[Hari Seldon]

Originally Posted by spanna

Do you think deceased siblings can pass on an inheritance before they have lived to receive it?

Look up the terms "per stirpes" and "per capita". Assets to be divided among the children per stirpes and first divided by the number of your children and, if one of them pre-deceases you, that share will go to his or her descendants. Per capita distributes your estate among surviving children, ignoring any other children's descendants. This was explained to me when my wife and I drew up our wills. Which was long enough ago that it still names a guardian for our son who is now nearly 39.