Inheritance--would you be upset by this?

In My Humble Opinion
41

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Well, that type of concern can be quite legitimate - especially when there are multiple generations involved.
[/QUOTE]
It just doesn’t apply to my family. I’ve never been brought up to expect an inheritance and my brother and I are both almost 40, self-supporting, and childless. Mom would never remarry and even if she did, she deserves to live it up after putting up with Pop and Gma all these years. :wink:

But hearing about it made me wonder if I would get any money directly from Gma’s death. Weird to think about.

42

I think you should really just keep you mouth shut and don’t breathe a word of your displeasure to anyone. Your parents made a deliberate choice to set it up in current fashion and (I get the impression) modifying it would be an enormous PITA for them. You really, really, really need to keep quiet about this. It’s unlikely anythings going to be done to make the situation the way you want it, and complaining will just piss everyone off.

It’s no win. Just play the odds re you dying before your mom and cut back on the skydiving.

43

Just try not to die and you won’t have to worry about it.

44

Term life insurance is cheap (it sounds like you are already doing this). You can easily plan for your dying before your mother by buying 500k of insurance (which only cost a few hundred dollars a year). Cancel it when she dies and the problem is solved.

Estate planning is not only a tax shelter; it provides a fair and equitable way to divvy out the estate without having to go to probate court. I’d rather not have to deal with that after my parents die. Families can fall apart fighting over the estate (ask a probate attorney); your parents wisely planned so that you don’t have to.

45

At this point, I don’t know that there is much you can do about it. Complaining won’t get you anywhere and will cause ill will amongst the rest of the family. What kind of documents are you signing?

There is nothing wrong with estate planning to avoid probate. Probate is a pain in the ass with a lot of work involved for the executor and a lot of reporting to be done to the state. As an added bonus, it is all public records so someone who is nosy can check to see what the deceased is worth.

Why walk away from a good sum of money because you are in a state of irritation? Will it change anything except for you not getting some money in a few years?

46

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I’m told this is simply how it’s done. It’s all about blood. Nearly everyone gives it to children first, grandchildren second, and so on. I know it doesn’t sound fair, but that is pretty standard distribution.
[/QUOTE]

When we adopted we were told about six times to make sure all wills and trust arrangements made sure to define children as “by blood or adoption” or our adopted son would not inherit by default. We have a friend whose extended family has a lot of wealth. One child is adopted (half bio sibling of the full siblings, adopted but not a blood relative on the wealth side) and does not qualify for any trust disbursements.

47

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
When we adopted we were told about six times to make sure all wills and trust arrangements made sure to define children as “by blood or adoption” or our adopted son would not inherit by default. We have a friend whose extended family has a lot of wealth. One child is adopted (half bio sibling of the full siblings, adopted but not a blood relative on the wealth side) and does not qualify for any trust disbursements.
[/QUOTE]
:eek: Dang…I never thought about that! Does this mean (hypothetically, of course), that if my parents died with no will, their 2 “blood” children could conceivably arrange to inherit everything, and leave us 2 adopted children out in the cold?

48

[QUOTE=Jodi]
But the person who does need it can have it – through you.
[/QUOTE]

I think the real issue here is that the circumstance which will leave her husband needing this the worst, is the circumstance in which he gets not one thin dime. Yes, it’s statistically unlikely that she’ll die before her parents. But stuff like that does happen, every single day.

Let’s face it, the earlier she dies, the longer that insurance money is going to have to last her husband and the more likely it is that the insurance won’t be enough. If she dies before her parents, he’s way more likely to need that inheiritance than if she outlives them. But the way they’ve got things set up, that’s exactly the situation where he won’t get anything.

I’d be incredibly hurt and upset by the thought that my parents were okay with leaving my spouse in actual financial need in the event of my untimely death. Blood relation or no, he’s still family, and you don’t leave family in the lurch like that. Of course, it’s a pretty unlikely scenario in our case, both because my parents are unlikely to leave behind any significant inheiritance, and because they’re the people who instilled such ideas about family in me in the first place.

49

That would vary by state-if memory serves, some states have modified the intestacy statutes to include adopted children. more info

50

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
:eek: Dang…I never thought about that! Does this mean (hypothetically, of course), that if my parents died with no will, their 2 “blood” children could conceivably arrange to inherit everything, and leave us 2 adopted children out in the cold?
[/QUOTE]

yep. that is my understanding. IANAL, state laws vary, etc.

51

[QUOTE=gigi]
It just doesn’t apply to my family. I’ve never been brought up to expect an inheritance and my brother and I are both almost 40, self-supporting, and childless. Mom would never remarry and even if she did, she deserves to live it up after putting up with Pop and Gma all these years. :wink:

But hearing about it made me wonder if I would get any money directly from Gma’s death. Weird to think about.
[/QUOTE]

I think you underestimate the kind of skullduggery that can go on when old age, diminished capacity, and money are involved. I’m in a situation even more complex than the one Dinsdale described, though we’ve fixed it reasonably well (though money my father intended for his granddaughter’s educations has vanished.) You might feel a bit differently if your Mom remarried someone you despised, and this person grabbed money.

Having set up a trust for us, (or having the lawyers do it) I can assure you that knowing with some degree of confidence that your money is going where you want it to go is very comforting. if and when you inherit, you should feel good that this is what your Gma wanted, and it is not something you pressured her into.

52

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
It would be because I’m not happy inheriting from an estate. When it seemed like the only way I could take care of my husband in the event of something happening to me, it was something I could accept. But I don’t have that excuse, since if something happens to me, he’s out of it anyway.

Most people don’t have this potential source of income. I am uncomfortable with it, especially the attempt to avoid estate taxes, but was trying to be pragmatic about it. I probably still will be, but it’s frustrating to find that the one circumstance I thought was covered isn’t, and the one circumstance that doesn’t need covered is.
[/QUOTE]

I can understand why you are upset about the situation, and I can understand your parents’ position, but I can’t understand why you are not happy about inheriting from an estate. If by some chance they gave you the money two seconds before they died, would you feel better about it?

One more question: is the trust dissolved upon their death? It doesn’t have to be. Ours stays active, and doles out money to our kids according to a specific schedule, with a financial management company managing the money. I can see more of an issue if there are limitations with what you can do with the money even after they die.

53

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I can understand why you are upset about the situation, and I can understand your parents’ position, but I can’t understand why you are not happy about inheriting from an estate. If by some chance they gave you the money two seconds before they died, would you feel better about it?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t like profiting from someone’s death. I don’t like feeling like a ghoul, saying, “Well, odds are that my mother is going to keel over before I do, so then I’ll have money!”

And, frankly, I needed the money five years ago. There was money sewn up, doing nothing but waiting for my parents to die so that I would have an inheritance, all the while I couldn’t pay bills. It feels absurd that my mother frets about how she has to make sure my inheritance grows, like she’s my stockbroker.

I hate that she loves her house but thinks she ought to sell it because that way her assets are more liquid in case she dies.

I hate that they spent a whole lot of time and money and sweat worrying because their spoiled children might not get every cent of their estate.

I hate that after my father’s death my mother spent nearly three years tussling with lawyers and judges and accountants.

What is it for? It just seems so unnecessary and wasteful.

54

I am a little bit confused, because what you describe sounds very like some version of a generation skipping trust or possibly a dynasty trust. However, if were one, your share could not be redistributed to your siblings; you would not have a share to redistribute.

A generation skipping trust is one where money or assets are held in trust for the grandchildren (well, there are some little tricks about that, but speaking broadly) and the income made by the assets are given to the children while the children are alive. The children do not inherit anything other than the right to get some part of the income. A dynasty trust is similar but is set up while the guy-with-the-original-money is still alive and is often funded with life insurance money (whicih means the trust is set up but has nothing or very little in it intil they die).

The Trustee usually is allowed to decide how much income to give to each of the children, when, and sometimes for what purpose. The Trustee can be given either very broad or very limited decision making power. The children are sometimes given certain powers also.

They are used for many reasons, the most often mentioned being avoidance of various estate and income taxes on the money.

Is any of this sounding familiar?

(While we are at it, I am not your lawyer or anybody’s lawyer. I have retired from the practice of law and have no legal advice to offer. I have no idea what state you are in or what state laws might apply, you are not my client, I do not even live in the United States at this moment. You are best served by consulting with a lawyer licensed in yor state where all the circumstances may be discussed fully and legal advice specific to your situation may be given to you.)

55

I can understand your desire to assure that your SO is cared for, but it is your mother’s choice and, from your desciption, I doubt she’s trying to single you out. I suspect she’s trying to be as fair as she can, from her perspective. I told my kids to forget about it. It’s their life and they have to make it, or break it, just like I did. If I can’t spend my last dollar just before I die (joke!), then anything left is going somewhere it might do some good, not be blown on a new car, big screen TV, or a hot tub. It really doesn’t take very much to start investing and it will amaze how fast you can build up a nest egg, it just takes a tiny bit of discipline. I hope you’ve considered my advice in the insurance thread.

56

[QUOTE=Marienee]
Is any of this sounding familiar?
[/QUOTE]

No. What you’re describing doesn’t match up with what I was told and read at all.

57

I find this a bit odd because it’s intestacy laws that define what happens by “default”-a will in and of itself is a non-default option. Your statement implies that the probate laws of Minnesota define children only as “blood children” excluding adopted children.

Here is what I found:

“Child” includes any individual entitled to take as a child under law by intestate
succession from the parent whose relationship is involved and excludes any person who is only a
stepchild, a foster child, a grandchild or any more remote descendant."

from this section

and “child” includes adopted children:

“If, for purposes of intestate succession, a relationship of parent and child must be established
to determine succession by, through, or from a person:
(1) An adopted person is the child of an adopting parent and not of the birth parents except
that adoption of a child by the spouse of a birth parent has no effect on the relationship between
the child and that birth parent. If a parent dies and a child is subsequently adopted by a stepparent
who is the spouse of a surviving parent, any rights of inheritance of the child or the child’s
descendant from or through the deceased parent of the child which exist at the time of the death of
that parent shall not be affected by the adoption.”

from this part of the probate code.

Please note that though I’m licensed in 2 jurisdictions, none of which are yours, I find it very, very, very difficult to believe that adopted children do NOT count as children under the probate code such that an adopted kid would be locked out-mainly because “adopted and 1/2 blood count” was drilled into my head during W/T/E. I would be interested in seeing which states exclude adopted children from the definition fo “children” for the purposes of intestacy.

58

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I hate that after my father’s death my mother spent nearly three years tussling with lawyers and judges and accountants.
[/QUOTE]
That sounds to me more like what happens WITHOUT a trust. My folks set up a trust very similar to your folks’ and when Dad died we had almost nothing to do - it was all prearranged in the trust. There was, like your situation, a resulting Survivor Trust and a Disclaimer Trust, and Mom was delighted that everything happened as smoothly as Dad would have hoped.

So perhaps your parents’ trust was poorly designed. No trust should take three years to settle. That’s one of the reasons for creating them.

I agree with the posters who have stated that this is a pretty normal situation. Most such arrangements, for better or worse, essentially assume that a child-in-law has his/her own parents. Given the huge number of divorces out there, and that trusts necessarily must look many potential years in the future, it’s no surprise that children-in-law are typically excluded.

59

Umm, that is not to say that you are a liar, Dangerosa, but as is usually the case, I’m pretty sure your agency was just trying to cover their asses as completely as they could…unless MN modified that statute AFTER you adopted.

60

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I don’t like profiting from someone’s death. I don’t like feeling like a ghoul, saying, “Well, odds are that my mother is going to keel over before I do, so then I’ll have money!”

And, frankly, I needed the money five years ago. There was money sewn up, doing nothing but waiting for my parents to die so that I would have an inheritance, all the while I couldn’t pay bills. It feels absurd that my mother frets about how she has to make sure my inheritance grows, like she’s my stockbroker.

I hate that they spent a whole lot of time and money and sweat worrying because their spoiled children might not get every cent of their estate.

What is it for? It just seems so unnecessary and wasteful.
[/QUOTE]

That’s too bad. Some of it I understand, some of it I don’t. How are your siblings about “fairness?” I can see her not wanting to give you money because then she’d feel that all her children would have to get money. My father was very careful to give my brother and me equal amounts to help us in buying houses. There being only two of us made it easier. And I think a lot of your dislike of inheriting comes from guilt about needing it, guilt which is really misplaced. Someone who doesn’t need the money has a lot easier time with inheriting it, but it doesn’t make them a better person.

Assuming that no one is making daily calls checking on the balance of the estate, I assure you that a parent’s feeling about having an estate is usually pleasure, not resentment. If your mother is depression era, like my father-in-law and my father are, it is a hard job to convince them her to spend some money on herself. I bet she feels that selling her house will make it easier for you, and she may be right. Did you grow up there? She might really want to sell, but is worried about the impact on her kids.

I hope this came across sounding okay. This sounds like a case of everyone wanting to do the right thing, and being at cross purposes anyhow.

This stuff is hard. The house next to me is standing empty now because the owner was estranged from his daughter and left her out of the will, and put his sister in instead - so now they’re fighting.