A couple of recent threads have got me thinking about an inheritance question that has been bugging me for a while.
Let’s say a couple passes, and does not leave behind a will. It is my understanding that the estate is divided equally among that couple’s surviving children. What happens when one child wants more than his/her equal amount? (assume two children, both adults, both of whom were on friendly terms with their parents for the sake of this argument.)
In all the horror stories I’ve ever heard of about splitting up an inheritance, each party wants more than the other one (ie, each wants the mansion, or each wants 75% of the estate, etc) or they are fighting over something that there is one of - a house, for instance. But what happens when one child says, basically, “I don’t care what I get or how much money I end up with, as long as its fair. A 50/50 split would be fine.” The other child says “I never went to college and have had to make my living mopping floors while my sister got an MD from Northwestern and has had it easy ever since”. Do the courts treat this like any other inheritance fight?
I know nothing about the law, but it seems to me that the court would split it 50/50 if only one party is contesting the established rule. (although, if one party contests the 50/50 split, and the other doesn’t agree with them, then it probably is treated as any other inheritance fight?)
For what reasons would a court not divide an estate equally among the surviving heirs?
BTW this is a hypothetical. I’m not in this situation and don’t know anybody in this situation. Just curious. You aren’t my lawyer, etc. etc. Although I am asking about U.S. laws.
It doesn’t matter what either party wants. The court has to follow the law. If state intestate succession law requires a 50/50 split, that’s what the court will do. Circumstances don’t matter.
How the children decide to divide the estate between themselves is another matter; nothing can stop the kid with the doctorate from saying “Mom and Dad sent me to school; you take the house”. An inheritance can be declined.
The law of intestate sucession (the law of dividing things up without a will) is not something the court can deviate from. There is a very specific way each state has of dividing up the estate between indivduals and between generations.
When you get into sibs arguing about percentages, you are usually dealing with wills that, for one reason or another, are deemed valid by some and invalid by others. Sometimes there are multiple wills that conflict with each other. That sort of thing. They may also argue about whether non-probate assests, like bank accounts with a named death beneficiary, we validly bequeathed. Sibs cannot argue about intestate distribution. There’s nothing to argue about.
Absent one sibling disavowing the inheritance compeltely, the court will not revise the intestate division for any reason.
By the way, in some states, including some of our most populous states like NY, Florida, and California, a will can have a “no-contest” clause, which states that anyone who contests their share immediately loses it.
Governments typically don’t want to get involved in negotiating between parties over inheritance, nobody does, that’s what wills are for. It’s cleaner and faster to have a set standard if there is no will.
The parties can always give each other the proper amounts after the fact, subject to all applicable gift taxes.