Inheritance--would you be upset by this?

[wonky]

@Kilvert's Pagan

That sounds to me more like what happens WITHOUT a trust.

A lot of the assets that went to fund the trust were hard to value. Oil wells, for example.

@Voyager

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.

No, don’t get me wrong. They would have given me money if I had asked for it. But it wasn’t offered. Instead, I’m offered money when they die.

I’m having a tough time explaining it.

It seems the money becomes its own reward instead of the means to an end, where you’ll see people never spending money in order to have more of it that they also don’t spend. And that’s how I see inheritance. My parents jumped through a lot of hoops to maximize the amount of money that I will get, not to maximize the amount of money that they had to spend, but the amount that I will get as their child. So then everyone’s dead, but yippee, I have money.

And if it turns out that I die before my mother, then all of her planning for me, all of the thought that she put into my inheritance that she was so proud of, ends up never meaning anything to me at all. I’m gone. Or if my only sibling without children dies, there isn’t any gift to give. And then I get to be richer still, if I survive.

There’s just a barrenness to it. What use is money if it isn’t making people’s lives better? My parents were proud of it, my mother still is very proud of it, very protective of her fortune so that she has something to give us, instead of spending the money on herself, or on her kids, or on her grandkids, or on a charity. And it grows and no one spends it and everyone eyes it occasionally and I need it less today than I did five years ago, and I survived without it then.

The one thing I thought my inheritance could do that I couldn’t was protect my husband. It can’t do that.

Okay, I am the rambliest rambler who ever rambled. I’m sorry.

[Eureka]

jsgoddess,

Your unhappiness is understandable. I’d expound on that, except then your comment about being “the rambliest rambler who ever rambled” would be untrue. (And probably expose truths about my family I’d rather not expose). I’m sorry that putting together and preserving the largest possible inheritance has become an end in itself.

[Shirley_Ujest]

Just a morbid thought, that probably holds no water whatsoever, but could you as an executor and/or daughter take out a life insurance policy on your parental units so as to help with the burial costs and stuff…
A friend of ours Mom has a life insurance policy on one of her three kids. The one that owes her a buttload of money she knows she will never see again. He is the next Unibomber and one of his three kids is Unibomber III.
Just curious.

To the best of your knowledge, I could be a monkey who is happening to hit the keys in the right order while not busy flinging excrement at his handlers.

We Salute you Mr. Poop Flinging Intranet Primate Lawyer!

[AuntiePam]

Apologies because this isn’t on point, but is your husband anyone else’s heir? Does he have parents or siblings from whom he will inherit? If he does, perhaps your parents considered that when they set up the trust.

[SailedTheOceanBlue]

@Caffeine.addict

While I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, you are not my client. I am probably not licensed in your state, I may not even know where your state is and most likely will never set foot in your state. If you want real legal advice, go see a lawyer who is licensed in your state.

Taking advice from a stranger over the internet is not a good idea. To the best of your knowledge, I could be a monkey who is happening to hit the keys in the right order while not busy flinging excrement at his handlers.

Best disclaimer, not ever, but in recent memory.

[Voyager]

@jsgoddess

I’m having a tough time explaining it.

It seems the money becomes its own reward instead of the means to an end, where you’ll see people never spending money in order to have more of it that they also don’t spend. And that’s how I see inheritance. My parents jumped through a lot of hoops to maximize the amount of money that I will get, not to maximize the amount of money that they had to spend, but the amount that I will get as their child. So then everyone’s dead, but yippee, I have money.
There’s just a barrenness to it. What use is money if it isn’t making people’s lives better? My parents were proud of it, my mother still is very proud of it, very protective of her fortune so that she has something to give us, instead of spending the money on herself, or on her kids, or on her grandkids, or on a charity. And it grows and no one spends it and everyone eyes it occasionally and I need it less today than I did five years ago, and I survived without it then.

The one thing I thought my inheritance could do that I couldn’t was protect my husband. It can’t do that.

Okay, I am the rambliest rambler who ever rambled. I’m sorry.

You’re not rambling at all. I understand a lot better now.

Do you know why she made the trust irrevocable? Was she scared the kids were going to fight about it?

How common are irrevocable trusts anyway? I don’t recall our estate planner ever mentioning it as an option, not that it would have made any sense. Why and when do they make sense?

[Kilvert_s_Pagan]

@Voyager

Do you know why she made the trust irrevocable? Was she scared the kids were going to fight about it?

IANAL, but this is pretty standard. The point is that once the assets are held in an irrevocable trust, they are no longer owned / controlled by the Grantor (the person(s) putting the assets into the trust). Otherwise, if the Grantor still owns and controls the assets, it’s hard to justify that this wouldn’t be a regular inheritance situation and the trust would be pointless.

My mom is the sole beneficiary of the income (and, if necessary, the principal) of the irrevocable Disclaimer trust, but I’m the special trustee and could legally prevent her from giving all of it to the Hare Krishnas. This proves that she no longer really “owns” the assets in that trust.

In other words, it’s a tax dodge.

[Dinsdale]

Just an observation, folks. You are getting into some pretty complicated trust and paternity questions. Tho I deal with similar questions somewhat regularly in my job (including MN), I would never presume to give advice on those without considerable knowledge about the specific facts.
Anyone who has anything other than general questions about trusts or adopted kids’ legal status really should see a qualified attorney licensed in their state. And realize that sometimes even they will get it wrong.

[Dangerosa]

@anu-la1979

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.

Which is possible - our adoption was eight years ago. And its also possible that this is a CYA move - meant to cover the agency regardless of what state or country grandma and grandpa live in. (My understanding at the time was our will would be fine - but that there was no guarentee that would hold in every possible circumstance.)

In the case of the wealthy family friend, the adopted child has been an adult for a long time.

[Dangerosa]

@myself

In the case of the wealthy family friend, the adopted child has been an adult for a long time.

And the trusts in question are almost 100 years old in some cases - does the law change a trust already established? Or are decendents (blood and adopted) subject to the original law?

[Kilvert_s_Pagan]

@Dinsdale

Just an observation, folks. You are getting into some pretty complicated trust and paternity questions. Tho I deal with similar questions somewhat regularly in my job (including MN), I would never presume to give advice on those without considerable knowledge about the specific facts.
Anyone who has anything other than general questions about trusts or adopted kids’ legal status really should see a qualified attorney licensed in their state. And realize that sometimes even they will get it wrong.

Good advice, as another poster’s poop-slinging monkey disclaimer on page one made very clear. My parents’ trust, for instance, was drawn up in Arizona, which has estate laws which are very favorable for retirees.

[Mama_Zappa]

@Stuffy

jsgoddess I remember you mentioning this in the insurance thread. If it’s not to personal a question, I remember you mentioning he gets disability. Is this the SSI type? I ask because my Mom recently revised her will and the fact that my brother receives SSI forced her to do something similar. He would lose his benefits and healthcare if he received money past a certain level. You may want to talk to an estate planner regarding that. In fact, I believe that applies to your life insurance as well.

We had to consider this as well when doing estate planning. Dweezil has autism and may well never be fully self-supporting. If he winds up receiving SSI or whatever, assets will be an issue. Therefore, everything we leave to him in our wills will actually be left to a trust set up to benefit him. The trust would own anything of any substance (house, car, whatever). That may be what your mother did.