nm
I’m not sure what the answer is, but ones here aren’t very convincing. They seem to be arguing the legality* rather than the morality.
Morally, I think parents have a duty to support their children. That would favor giving each child an equal part. But that duty is reduced once they become independent. So there’s a good argument in favor of unequal distribution–the parents are giving to each child as needed. Fair is not always equal.
I’d rather see discussion about how long parents have a duty to support their children vs what’s a fair division vs an equal division. Arguments amounting to “what’s mine is mine and I can do whatever I like with it” look to be arguing that what is legal is also moral. I don’t accept that.
*And as a side note, the legality of unequal distribution of inheritance depends on the jurisdiction. Many countries and cultures have laws and customs concerning inheritance that differ greatly from the American assumptions we’re seeing here. Birthrights may be enforced.
I think although, I’m not clear that the house was sold before the parents died, and A bought another house where they all lived together. Now that parents died, he is selling the house that he bought for the whole family to live together.
At this point, all of the children are grown. Everybody is already out on their own. If mom and dad had decided to leave all of their money to charity, would it be immoral? The parents already raised the kids.
Honestly that family history is usually very relevant. It goes to explaining why C got nothing.
Thanks to all for the opinions; they are surprisingly (to me) closely aligned with each other; I think I expected more of a spread. I am one of the siblings, though which one doesn’t matter. I asked the question here and tried to frame it as objectively as I could to get unbiased opinions on generally what’s right or wrong. Having been involved and hearing inside opinions back and forth about what’s fair and not over 30 years, I considered myself too biased to see the situation from the outside. The mentioning of C’s large inheritance that came and went was included in the description because it was one of the main points the parent’s based their decision on: that C already had good fortune to receive almost 7 figures, didn’t decide to share with A or B, therefore why should they be obligated to give a portion of their small gift to C? Neither A or B care what C did with their fortune, but it was very relevant to the parents.
Now that A is planning on selling the house in the present, B is asking if A plans to keep the money or share with B and/or C… and bringing up the fact that there were 3 siblings and hinting that the unequal distribution wasn’t right years ago, and that A should do what’s right now.
Knowing all the additional family history, present day financial situations, and motivations makes it difficult to determine if B’s suggestions are right , wrong, or neutral from the inside. But going by opinions here based on an outside look (as best I can describe it), it seems like B might be out of line to suggest that A should retroactively “fix” an unfair decision someone else made years earlier. So perhaps there never was any “right or wrong” about who got what years ago… and therefore it seems inappropriate to use the past in negotiating the present.
These two come closest to my POV. Driver8 nailed it from the kids’ POVs: You are owed exactly zero; parents could have given it all to the local cat shelter instead.
Meanwhile, Isamu nailed it from the parents’ POV: The bequests you leave are going to be the final acts of your life. Make them a worthy symbol of your life, not a big fat “fuck you”, or worse yet, “I couldn’t be bothered” to your kids. Choosing, by commission or omission, to hand your kids a topic to fight over for years is choosing to be a jerk.
The more sensible and ordinary the people, the easier of course. Throw in wildly divergent personalities, wildly divergent luck & income and all the rest and it only gets harder, not easier to do the “right” thing by all.
There’s always the tension inherent in capitalism vs socialism: to each according to need, according to simple per capita, or according to merit? When we examine our own personal thinking on economics in general, we’ll see spots where we prefer each of those three choices for whatever personal combination of reasons. Pretty clearly they’re not economic reasons, so for lack of a better term, they’re moral reasons.
The OP’s scenario neatly encapsulates the three competing measuring sticks for the “goodness” / “fairness” of a particular distribution. IMO a “good” distribution takes all three factors into account. Not that they’re co-equal, but each deserves consideration.
And the parents apparently dropped Isamu’s ball big time if the sibs don’t know the why. Not saying that knowing would amount to agreeing with. But if there are mysteries at the core, that’s not good.
The OP’s post just above hits these same points, but from the POV of specifics looking for a rule. I hope I’ve articulated a set of rules that can be used to identify, if not measure, the specifics.
It was not an unfair decision. Your parents decided based on needs it sounds like, and to insure their own end of life care, while providing help getting a house for the B sibling. They clearly felt the large inheritance C got would cover their needs.
Nothing unfair happened here. Your parents got their end of life care covered while helping the two of their children, who needed it, to get homes of their own.
Anyone thinking funds should be redustributed, this many years later, to make things more ‘fair’, is simply looking for a payout in my opinion.
In the end, it was the parents choice to make and they did so. If you loved them then you respect their wishes, regardless of which sibling you are, I should think.
Sibling C can have a Coke and a smile. In other words, nothing from the parental inheritance.
Sibling A can do what he/she pleases with the money from the sale of the house. My default would be to suggest Sibling A keep it all. The gift / inheritance was contingent upon Sibling A taking care of the parents, and apparently Sibling A (and family) did that for 10 years.
The only way I could see offering Sibling B a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the house would be if Sibling B helped Sibling A care for the parents during the previous 10 years, and was never compensated for that. For example, if Sibling B helped with medical care, incurred travel expenses to be with the parents while Sibling A took a vacation, etc. … then it seems fair to me to recognize Sibling B’s efforts.
If Sibling B did nothing to help care for the parents, I have no qualms with Sibling A keeping all the money from the house sale.
Morality is always a difficult thing to objectively define. But if you’re going to discuss morality (and that’s the point of this thread) then you have to start with the premise that there is such a thing as morality and that some things are more moral than others.
That’s still a moral argument. It just so happens that in this case the moral thing (I can do with my stuff as I please so long as it isn’t harming someone) is also the legal thing. You have the arguments backwards - we aren’t arguing legality, it’s just so happens that morality and legality are aligned in this case.
So you say. You might be right, too. But the discussion here is not convincing me of that.
Not really.
Your argument amounts to “finders keepers is always the trump card and no other considerations can ever modify that.”
There are plenty of places in ye Olde Common Lawe that modify basic “finders keepers”. Because over time our society has discovered that while it’s a decent rule, it’s not universally applicable in its pure form.
The law is always a lagging indicator of society’s view of morality. Which is to say that most of society recognizes there are additional moral considerations applicable to “finders keepers” beyond those already codified in law. The reason they’re not codified (yet) is that society has not (yet) coalesced to sufficient agreement on what they should be.
Your comments amount to saying that “Since we don’t have a single agreed answer, the question itself is invalid and unaskable.” IMO that’s bogus. The question can be asked. Many different answers will be forthcoming. But that proves there’s great value in asking it, not zero value.
I’m wondering what kind of argument would convince you, though I guess it’s fair enough for you to say you don’t have a convincing argument either way and are just looking for one.
I see no basis in any rational system of morality why the gift recipients would be obligated to reshuffle the distribution the gift givers decided on, based on the facts as given*. Such an absence of an argument may not be convincing to you, but does it for me. Simply, why in the world would the recipients do that? And in the vast majority of cases they aren’t going to: practicality and compatibility with human nature is one factor in a workable system of morality. Saying what virtually everyone would do is ‘immoral’ runs into problems.
I think a discussion could be entertained as to the morality of parents’ giving surprise unequal inheritances even for what they think are good reasons. These tend to be so toxic to the relationships among heirs that it’s hard for the reasons to really turn out ‘good’. But here OP is asking what obligation the beneficiaries have to redistribute on a different basis than the parents decided, and moreover the situation is not even an inheritance. The ‘shortchanged’ siblings could have expressed objections to the parents when they gave the gift of the house while still around. Putting pressure on A now is what strikes me as dicey morality, if that’s what’s going on.
*if there was some element of coercion or deception that would be a different story, but I assume that was not the case.
My grandfather pitched in on the down payment for a 2 family home, with the contingency that he and my grandmother live there and we care for them as long as possible. They then paid their utilities but nothing else. We cooked for them every evening, 2X on Sunday, I cleaned the place, did her hair and other chores for 7 years. Did I earn that $58K? You bet I did. My mother held that over my head until she lost control of the trust. We’ll see what my sibs do.
I bet sib A earned his/her share.
See my previous post for what I’d find convincing:
There’s been little discussion here about the moral duty parents have to their children. Maybe that duty is no longer operative at the point of inheritance. Or maybe it is, but to a lesser degree. Or maybe a parent’s moral duty is never reduced. I’m open to any position, but ignoring it fatally weakens any argument.
Closely related to parental duty is birthright. Morally (not legally), do children have birthrights? Why or why not?
There has been some discussion of fair vs equal. I’d like to see more about that.
To be clear, the position I’m leaning toward in this situation is the parents’ initial division of the inheritance should be left as is. That’s legally defensible (in the US). But nothing I’ve read here convinces me that is also morally defensible, especially when the issues of parental duty and children’s birthrights are hardly discussed.
But this situation is not a general gifting situation. It is an inheritance. You could argue that parental duty and childrens’ birthrights are not moral obligations (either in general or here specifically), but I can’t take it as a given.
Maybe as a general discussion it’s reasonable to include all that, but either you or I (I really think it’s you) are missing two important points in the OP.
- OP is asking what’s the moral obligation of the recipients to change what the givers decided, not to judge the morality of the parents’ action. I see no basis in any rational moral system where A is obligated to do anything for B and C in this circumstance.
- It’s not actually an inheritance, quoting OP:
"So, sibling A takes their 95% and uses it to buy a different house (HOUSE Y)and has the parents move in. the 95% is essentially invested and there’s nothing left over. All three live together for the next 10 years, then parents both die. "
The parents gave A the house while still around. This is important because the real issue, the parents v B/C, could have been addressed by either or both sides when parents were still around. B/C coming to A only after the parents die as if it’s A’s problem is out to lunch, the technical term I’d apply according to my moral philosophy expertise. 
The only inheritance per se involved is C’s (spouse presumably directly) inheriting from C’s in laws, which everyone seems to agree is irrelevant.
My bolding.
It can suck when one of the siblings is favored. My uncle was the golden child and got all the love in his family. My mother and her sisters fought over whatever scraps of affection which fell off the kitchen table. It was an ugly, ugly situation. It winds up that all five of the girls marry abusive men or losers. The dysfunction continues to their children while the Golden Child goes on to become a university professor and his children do well.
I don’t know if that applies to your family, but it can be sad. Sometimes money is a symbol of greater things.
Unfortunately, that is an answer about legality. Yes, there is no inheritance, as seen by the law. There is no dispute about that. But the gifting by parents of a large fraction of their assets to their children is commonly understood to be inheritance. Parents can’t avoid their moral obligations to their children by relying on legal definitions.
Siblings also have moral obligations to each other. That includes treating each other fairly. That means correcting for injustices imposed on them by their parents. It’s obvious that the original poster is aware of that, otherwise the question is moot. There is no question about the legality, as explicitly stated. The original poster wants clarification on the morality of the situation, which recognizes there are moral obligations involved.
Thus, arguments here should be based on the morals. Yes, morality is ill-defined and subjective. That’s why our society is governed by law and not morals. But if we want to do what is right and not simply what is legal, we need to consider the morality.
For example, I’d argue thusly. The parents unequally divided the inheritance of their children (who I’ll call Alice, Betty, and Charlotte, for easier reading). Why? Each received according to their foreseeable needs. Alice needed the most because she was going to provide for their parents. Betty received enough for her needs, a down-payment. Charlotte received nothing, because she didn’t need anything. That is fair, and fair does not always mean equal. Later, Betty and Charlotte question their parents’ division. Was it fair? If it was not, the siblings have a moral obligation to correct their parents’ mistake.
To answer that, while there could be an issue about whether fairness of opportunity vs fairness of outcome is better, I think the parents were trying for fairness of outcome. But it’s difficult to foresee into the future. They did their best to make sure each child ended up with a good financial outcome. To me, that implies a fair division of the inheritance and the children should not redistribute.
That is an argument based on the morality of the situation. It’s what I’d say without much deliberation. But we can do better than that here on the SDMB. Let’s poke holes:
- The outcome is not equivalent, so the division was not fair.
- The parents didn’t know about the inheritance of Charlotte’s spouse, so they should’ve given her more.
- The parents should’ve known Charlotte is financially irresponsible and given her more to compensate.
- Alice received more than she needed to provide for their parents, so she should distribute the extra to her siblings.
- Fairness of opportunity is better than fairness of outcome. Alice’s support of their parents should not be considered when dividing the inheritance.
- The unequal division caused antipathy among the siblings, so their inheritance should be redistributed to mend family unity.
I’m sure there’s more. I don’t think I’d accept any of these objections without a compelling argument. But I do think they need to be considered. On the basis of morality, not legality.
The level of entitlement some people feel about other people’s money just blows me away.
My husband comes from a large, very wealthy family on his father’s side, with the grandfather as patriarch to a bunch of spoiled, entitled children. The kids (in their 50s) whined when grandparents donated $10 million to a charity, as if they were somehow owed that money through the inheritance.I can’t even fathom how ugly things are going to get when they pass and it comes time to start divvying up the assets (they’re in real estate development), but we’ve vowed to stay as far away from it as possible.
It’s not just the family - my husband’s mother, who is not part of that family, has always held that grandparents owe us favors and assistance when we’re struggling, and no, they don’t. They owe us nothing. While I wouldn’t be devastated to inherit a large quantity of money from them someday, it’s not an expectation or an entitlement. There is no moral claim to inheritance.
Pleonast, I just wanted to say that you’re making the same arguments I’d be making if you didn’t keep beating me to them and saying them more clearly than I would have. Bravo!
I don’t know, I just have a feeling you didn’t really notice that it wasn’t anywhere near an inheritance, but gifting 10 yrs+ prior to the parents’ death, and are now just responding trying to rope it into your previous point about legal v moral, and including judgments about the parents’ actions.
Which as I said before both could in general circumstances be a valid point. But hard to see how either are here. It’s not a legal technicality whether you give one kid a house 10 yrs before you die v. leave a surprise uneven inheritance. Those aren’t the same morally either. B/C’s gripe was with the parents. The parents were around for years after this actually happened for B/C to express their views, and for anyone to agree or not on the parents’ moral position. Why does it just become an issue for A now the parents are dead? That’s pretty clearly opportunistic on B/C’s part or anyone else who now criticizes A for not giving their money to B/C, IMO. The time line is definitely relevant, the case isn’t as general as your open ended far ranging rhetoricals imply.
So again any part about the parents’ moral obligation to divide evenly is not relevant here, though in general I’d lean toward saying there is one, but it’s not a issue here. And likewise the circumstances here lead IMO to basic common sense head scratching why A would now be found to have some moral obligation to give B and C some of their money.
A major religion with still great embedded influence on our society can be read to say that’s what everyone should do with all their possessions. Why don’t you consider handing over everything you have that puts you above world average? Don’t you have an obligation to those people as your brothers/sisters in mankind? So OK on that basis it’s a reasonable question for A as for everyone else. On any really practical moral basis specific to these facts, not so much IMO.