Perhaps it’s better to ask the original poster why they thought there was any moral question at all. Call it “parents’ distribution of their assets to their children” if the word “inheritance” is giving you trouble.
Do you think the moral argument I described in my previous post is good? Do you think the objections I make to it are persuasive? If you answer yes and no, then we are in agreement.
I simply want to hear discussion about why anyone’s answer is moral and the right thing to do, beyond strict legality. I haven’t heard any argument that are particularly convincing (mine included).
While I agree on paper that there’s nothing immoral about doing whatever you’d like with your money, I think it’s a very obtuse person who doesn’t understand that grossly favoring one child will lead to resentment. And who wants that for their kids? (I mean, has nobody in this family ever read Jane Austen?)
Since the transaction involving the houses was done while the parents were alive and of sound mind, then IMO that transaction is off the table for discussion. The only exception is if the parents did that primarily as a way to shelter their assets and avoid the look back should they need to go into a nursing home. If that’s the case, and A should know it if it was, then A really should do some soul searching and number crunching to see if throwing some money his siblings way may be in order. It’s very possible that after a decade, nothing would have been left to split. After all, A should be compensated for all those years he/she housed, fed, and cared for mom and dad. Fair is fair.
See, as a parent, a sibling, and a child, this puzzles me. IMO C’s inheritance is completely irrelevant because it was inherited through an unrelated spouse. I’d never expect my sibling to share a windfall with me, (except indirectly as he’d damn well better invite me to his beach house!), let alone a windfall inherited (or earned!) from his/her spouse.
So I do have issues with the PARENTS who gave C nothing. That’s not fair. Both A and B presumably have or may have in-laws as well, and may one day inherit a tidy sum. C shouldn’t be punished because they had the misfortune of experiencing loss first.
But if they have limited assets, and children of varying needs, then it’s their prerogative to divvy it up as best suits everyone, in their eyes. They used their wealth to insure their end of life care,( for both, at home, for however long it may take.) And to help the two of their children without the means to acquire homes.
Why should they have to leave some to the one who already had a windfall? They don’t have any moral obligation to do so. If that child was in need perhaps you could make the case. But they’re not, they’re we’ll set. I think they did alright by each.
Whining it’s not fair after ten years is beyond childish in my eyes. The parents did nothing wrong. They could have given it all to the animal shelter if they wanted. They created this wealth, they get to say where it goes, and their wishes need to be respected. PERIOD.
Wouldn’t sibling A taking on the care of the parents make a huge amount of savings for whatever was left? Otherwise the money would have had to go to a nursing home or home care, if they had assets to pay for them. Sibling A very much earned their inheritance. They looked after the parents for ten years but it oumd have been longer.
That’s assuming they actually did do all the care for the parents minus specialist nursing and it’s important to note if they actually did.
Siblings b and c are where the query lies and to be honest it sounds like such a small amount of money that any argument is really about something else.
Of course, it’s their prerogative. But it’s also B and C’s prerogative to feel hurt by it. I think giving based on “need” is very subjective. I’d like to keep it as objective as possible so that there’s no tension or misperception that I favor one over the other.
YMMV.
C’s windfall had nothing to do with them. And legally speaking, it’s probably not even C’s money, but his/her spouse’s money, as most states consider inheritances to be separate property. So were C to get divorced, he/she would not be entitled to that “windfall.”
My husband actually inherited a sizeable chunk of money when he was 25, because both of his parents tragically died very young. I had zero say, ethically or legally, in how that money was spent because they left it to their son, not me. I can’t even imagine how bewildering it would be were my parents to leave me less than my siblings because my husband’s parents happened to predecease them.
I also feel the same way if A was a neurosurgeon with 5 homes and B was a mechanic struggling to pay his debts. In my eyes, my children are equal. They both benefitted (or suffered!) from being born to us, and both were afforded the same opportunities and freedom to choose their own path. The fact that one might earn a lot more money than the other is completely irrelevant to me. They are each entitled to 50% of what we have.
It may seem like a PERIOD to you, but this thread is just one of a hundred where it’s not actually that cut and dried. People’s feelings get hurt all the time over inheritances. All the more reason to divide it up equally and call it a day. IMO.
I think that would depend on how much the house was worth and how healthy the parents were.
I’m at an age where a lot of my friends are now taking care of their parents, either because they assumed that responsibility voluntarily, or because it was thrust upon them because they live the closest. It’s rarely drama-free because everyone has a different opinion on what’s fair.
I really like a practice that is starting to develop, and that is paying the child who cares for their parents a stipend for their services, in addition to rent if they move into their home. As you say, elder care isn’t cheap, and I think all kids benefit equally from knowing that Mom and Dad are being cared for by a loving relative vs. some random nursing home staff member.
By paying as they go, there is also an acknowledgement that it’s WORK to care for someone, and worth something tangible. And, of course, the longer they live, the more the caregiver will pocket. I think that there’s a fairness to that method that takes away a lot of the hurt and resentment that might happen were they to just give it all to the caregiver upon their death.
Does this argument hold over at this thread where Dinsdale is asking how to deal with a bigamous FIL who clearly favors the other family to the point of making his wife’s family eat at a card table while the formal dining room is set with china for the favored family to enjoy a feast the next day.
It’s the FIL’s money, right? He gets to say what he spends it on, correct? “His wishes need to be respected PERIOD.” Oddly, no one in that thread is suggesting that because the FIL “created his wealth, he gets to say where it goes. PERIOD.”
When people treat others badly, it is wrong.
As Pleonast pointed out, there are some questions concerning the fairness of the distribution of the money. We’re not privy to the details, but the devil is in the details, so it’s impossible to make sweeping statements concerning the truth.
Is the 95% of the money an appropriate amount for Child A’s effort? There isn’t any way for us to know that.
My Japanese ex-wife had sort of a similar situation where the fifth son and his wife lived with the grandparents and helped take care of them (or almost completely took care of them) for decades, including looking after the increasingly senile grandfather while the grandmother was confined to a bed in a rest home for 10 years because of a stroke. Not only did the other brothers willingly give up their share of the family house, they chipped in and paid for a vacation for the brother and his wife since the two had not been able to take one for 15 years.
OTOH, when my aunt was staying in the upstairs apartment for my grandmother, she did very little, ran up huge bills, and complained to everyone and their dog about how unfair life was that she had to do the tiniest thing despite getting free rent. She was finally kicked out and my mother moved in to take care of Grandma for the final years of her life. Suddenly the aunt was a firm believer in no one getting any special considerations.
Is the 95% fair? Depends on which end of the spectrum this situation was. The OP taking about Child A always being favored so that is likely a factor.
I agree with PunditLisa that Child C’s spouse inheriting some money shouldn’t have been a factor.
I strongly disagree. The devil IS in the details. The most important detail is that they made a WILL to determine where they wanted it to go. The respectful and the moral thing to do is to follow their wishes. That’s why you make a legal document, to make sure it happens. How can you just overlook that they no doubt must have had their reasons, (that they needn’t share with anyone.) If you love them why wouldn’t you?
Now if, at the time, all three are in agreement sure, divide it up as you see fit. But ten years later? One sibling wants things redivided? Sorry, I’m not seeing any moral obligation there.
If they’d left half to an animal shelter would the sibling think that should be redustributed too? It’s silly. That’s why we make wills and why wills are legal documents. So it goes where we say.
A didn’t inherit 95%, it wasn’t a gift, if A was the caregiver for 10 years. A earned that money, because being a caregiver is very hard work, even when you are caring for someone you love.
You’re right that the will reflects the decision of the parents. And should/must be followed to the letter.
But that says exactly zero about the duties and obligations the siblings *have to each other *after the will is executed and the proceeds fully distributed. The whole and entire question the OP has is about this second phase; the one that’s ongoing until there’s only one sib left alive.
e.g.
I’m pretty darn comfy financially. One of my brothers is working class scraping by. If nothing changes between now and then when we’re both old things will be much harder for him than for me. Psychologically he’s at least as healthy as I am; he just never developed a high-paying skill. So we’re not dealing with insanity, drug abuse, laziness, step-relationships or any of the other family complicators that often intrude into these kinds of situations.
Legally I owe him exactly zero. If he ends up homeless for lack of money that’s not my legal problem. But it *is *my moral problem, at least according to my personal sense of ethics and morality. I will share when the time comes because morally I must share.
It happens that our deceased parents both took the path of equal inheritances for each of us kids. But if they had not that still would not alter the point that I am, to some degree, my brother’s keeper. Because he *is *my brother.
The OP’s A & C *may *have a moral duty to B that has nothing to do with the inheritance as such. The inheritance merely provides what some people think of as “free money”, and it’s easier for many people to be more generous with a windfall than they are with their daily savings. Not that people *should *be that way, but they often are.
The distribution of an inheritance is entirely up to the person writing the will. Those are the only terms of the deal. There is no ethical way to modify the terms after the will is executed. It is quite simple really.
I disagree. And I don’t see how C is “punished” by not receiving a windfall he doesn’t need.
Someone mentioned previously equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. I definitely favor, in the case of parents, equality of outcome. C is wealthy already? OK, let’s make sure that A and B will be comfortable too.
You’re saying also that A or B might receive an inheritance someday. Well, maybe. Although presumably, that would be already known (did either of them marry someone coming from a wealthy family?). But maybe also they will win the lottery. You can’t rely on that. But you can rely on whatever limited knowledge you have. Which is that C, in the foreseeable future, won’t need his parent’s money as much as his sibling. Contrarily to you, I would have found, maybe not exactly unfair, but a “dereliction of duty” on the part of the parents to give as much to C (to allow him more luxuries, presumably) than to A and B (presumably to pay for more necessary things).
However : under US law, does C have any claim on C’s spouse inheritance money? I’m asking because under French law, lacking a (rare) marriage contract stating otherwise, this inheritance would be C’s spouse’s only, and C would have no claim to it, for instance in case of divorce or death of the spouse.
From my previous post #45: “C’s windfall had nothing to do with them. And legally speaking, it’s probably not even C’s money, but his/her spouse’s money, as most states consider inheritances to be separate property. So were C to get divorced, he/she would not be entitled to that “windfall.””
It’s not a federal issue but an individual state issue. Most states do not consider inheritance when dividing marital assets.
My grandmother was a school teacher and my grandfather was a coal miner til he got burned over half his body, then he became a painter (as in he painted walls, not murals). My mother and her sister inherited almost a million bucks from them. Who’d have thought? Even a modest amount of money, invested wisely, could reap a significant amount of money.
Agree completely. But here’s a complicator. As you say, there are 50 US states with 50 different detailed rules, but what follows is pretty commonly the outline …
After an inheritance is received the beneficiary generally needs to take deliberate steps to keep the money separate from the shared marital property. e.g. put the money into a separate investment or savings account in their own name only, etc. And they need to maintain this separateness going forward.
If (a week, a month, or two decades later) the beneficiary transfers the inheritance money from their individual account into a joint account that money is now irrevocably jointly owned and would be divided in a subsequent divorce settlement.
Some folks don’t understand this and make that irrevocable decision accidently from the git-go then live to regret it later.
I’m not sure if you are just trying to be clever here, but the meaning of the idiom is exactly opposite of what you are claiming.
In other words, it really depends on the particulars of a given situation rather than your argument which is a blanket statement for all situations.
You didn’t address any of my arguments and are simply stating your opinion strongly.
Perhaps you feel strongly enough about this that you don’t believe it’s necessary to explain yourself or to address questions. If so, that makes it difficult to have a discussion.
I wrote on the reasons why I disagree that its always necessary to not be happy with another’s actions when there are cases of favoritism, for example. Are you going to address that?
You don’t know these people and whether there really was favouritism. The OP made only a vague reference.
The OP also never mentioned anyone being in dire straights or actually being in need. So all that moral obligation to care for one’s brother doesn’t really seem to be an issue to me. Just that ten years later, one sibling thinks it should be revisited. What if everyone has already spent their inheritances? How’s that going to work? It’s beyond silly really.
I’m going with the parents know a lot better than all of us, as to what was the right way to distribute their wealth. They clearly put a great deal of thought into it. They received ten years of care, the depth and breadth of which was never addressed. We’ve been given no info about the nature of other things such as paying for weddings, or college, or bail, addictions, conflicts, betrayals, or a million other things that routinely occur in families.
Let’s not forget it’s not three siblings insisting on a different split, immediately following the reveal, all in agreement it’s not fair. It’s a full 10yrs later, and only one sibling!
I mean it’s fun for people on the internet to project their feelings, or a situation they heard of, or lived, onto this. But seriously, how can anyone not honour their parents wishes with good grace regardless?
The only detail that matters here is that they made a WILL. I’m going to assume they had a good reason to make a WILL. And an equally good reason to divide their estate as they did.
Interesting point, because the one who seems to be projecting the most is you. Other people have questioned if something was happening, but it seems you are the one who is unilaterally deciding what is happening.
Can in point:
Again, going back to something you didn’t respond to:
You are assuming that
Dinsdale mentions that the other family is going to clean up in the will, including getting some property which his wife was promised initially, and for which he and his wife maintained.
Exactly the same as this one. We cannot possibly know nearly enough from a single reporter, likely biased, of events spanning many years. We must trust in those that had to make the choice, as being most informed about it.
I’m confused. Isn’t this the very purpose of the will.? So YOU get to say where it goes. Possibly because you are aware of info not known publicly. Isn’t it a legally binding document for this very reason?
Do you know if Pops lent sibling C tens of thou that was never paid back? Is Dad required to share this info with the other siblings? What if he helped one out with bail, rehab, lawyers for some shameful thing or other? What if …a thousand things we cannot possibly know? Do you believe that everyone in the family is going to be in on the details to such events? That families don’t have secrets?
It’s also possible one sibling is favoured for an actual valid reason, like being the one most capable/trustworthy to provide the required care? We cannot possibly know all of the nuance is entirely my point.
What would the siblings have done if the parents had simple made these dispensations while alive? Stamped their feet and made a fuss? They would have to suck it up, I think. I thought with the will, it would ensure as much.
And no, I don’t believe anyone has a moral obligation, ten years later, where no one is in actual need, but now one sib perceives an imbalance.
Now answer my question, what if they’ve spent it all in the interim ten years?