One risk of getting everyone together to discuss it is that there’s a chance it doesn’t go well. If someone isn’t okay with an unequal split, there could be hurt feelings. They may not want to rock the boat, so they say nothing and keep their resentment inside. They might bring up their concerns but the others may resent that person for not being charitable. There’s no guarantees that a discussion with everyone about this subject will go as planned.
I know my dad had himself declared “dead” with regard to my grandmother’s will. And the inheritance came directly to his children (but not our cousins whose parents were still alive). This was back in the 80s.
Thanks. I see I misread.
So the OP proposes asking the middle child - the wealthiest one, the MS retiree, to voluntarily give up his share to older sister. But doesn’t ask the youngest child - son, earning $400k/year with only 1 kid, to pony up at all.
Not at all the choice I would make - but we all get to fuck up our family dynamics however we choose, don’t we? 
True dat!
Here’s another potential consideration. Let’s say the day after any family agreement is reached, one of the brothers trips on the stairs, lands on his head, and becomes a vegetable. Or any number of other unforeseen misfortunes occur. Or daughter happens to buy a lottery ticket on a whim and wins millions? Or the 2 in-law sibs happen to die, relieving her of those particular potential needs. Should OP rewrite the wills? Hold another “family meeting”?
What if these things happen after mom and dad die. WIll sister decide to give a few hundred K to whichever sib to reflect their changing “needs”?
This is going to sound heartless, but to a large extent, I see daughter as knowing what she was getting into when she married her hubby - at least WRT the sib who was going to need lifelong care. (Kinda related - 1 of my sisters married a guy whose parents had Huntington’s. He lived a fine life, but died a horrible premature death, imposing tremendous emotional and financial costs on my sister. Should my parents have given her a greater share because of her choice of spouse?) Not sure how much that cost should be imposed on her 2 sibs. Also, she and her hubby aren’t exactly destitute. What is so horrible about her and her hubby supporting whichever of his sibs they wish to on their salaries, retirement income, and 1/3 of the OP’s estate? With the more well-off sibs contributing out of their freewil should they choose.
I’m thinking of my sibs (4 of us), my wife’s sibs (3), and my kids (3). For each set, you could make arguments that one is more or less needy than the others. Largely based on how they chose to lead their lives, and what they prioritized. Maybe you could rank them in terms of however you define “need.” But, to a large extent, that ranking would reflect any number of personal choices and good and bad luck. Not sure that necessarily warrants splitting the estate unevenly.
I’ve read a lot of the thread but not all of it, so I apologize if this ground is covered already.
I agree with those who say not to put your children in the middle of any decisions about giving or not giving support to your daughter’s in-laws. Rather than relying on their goodwill at some time in the future, I would establish the parameters of the trusts for the two in-law siblings now, thereby effectively taking that amount out of your estate, and then divide the rest equally. I would also hire a professional fiduciary as trustee of the trusts, rather than making any of your children responsible. The money that a professional costs, I believe, will be worth it for the peace and well-being of the family. This way you and your wife are taking full responsibility for whatever help you want your daughter’s in-laws to have, and none of your children has to bear the brunt of sibling or in-law unhappiness. Of course, all this should be completely transparent, but I wouldn’t ask any of their opinions.
There are two major life events that could occur, that I can think of, that could throw all your plans into a blender. One is that you and/or your wife could end up with large end-of-life expenses that leave very little behind for your children. The other is that your daughter and her husband could get divorced, which would probably change her feelings about supporting any of her (now former) in-laws. So maybe don’t make any arrangements now that can’t be unmade later.
Excellent point. You make several good points, but I haven’t seen anybody else recommend this. Or maybe I just missed it.
For liability reasons it’s becoming increasingly difficult in the USA to hire a fiduciary to act as trustee for a trust unless the dollar amount is huge. For which they charge a lot.
Lots of entities will be glad to hold a trust account; banks, brokerages, etc. But acting as the trustee is a very different situation and one the finance industry is actively running from.
Just for the record, my daughter is the oldest, the wealthy son is second and the well-off son the third. They are all very close to each other and to us.
Since I didn’t tell anyone else what I wrote him and told him that I would not tell anyone else, so it is on him. But I really trust him to do the right thing. As for gift tax, he can just spread it out over years. My daughter’s FIL has a small house in south Jersey (Exit 3) and social security. Not much else. I assume the other son also gets social security, although Trump would like to end that.
Yeah. IMHO that’s a real shitty thing to do to him. Honestly a bit cowardly. Sorry but of all possible choices that is among the worst.
And you wrote this to him? Not even a phone call to discuss it with him?
ETA. That sounds harsh but god if I was that son this would be exactly the worst place to put me. Now I am a secret keeper from my siblings on top of the rest.
Please call him and suss out how he feels about this. Maybe he’s chill with it. But dang I sure wouldn’t be.
We have the very same situation. Our two boys both have excellent careers; my daughter has learning difficulties, and she’s busting her ass to work toward a veterinary technologist designation, which will be a great career, but it won’t pay remotely the same.
We told the boys that she would get 40% when we die (vs 30/30 for them), and they both understood. We also had it written into the will, and talked a little more about the details with the son that we designated to manage the financial part. It was seriously no big deal at all.
One way to accomplish what you want in a very simple way is with beneficiaries on your financial accounts. (Assuming Canada has something similar.) In case anyone is not aware, financial accounts can have defined beneficiaries who will receive the funds after all the account holders have died. The money transfers to the beneficiaries directly without having to go through probate and is not part of the estate. Use of beneficiaries can greatly simplify your estate distribution since the financial assets will be directly distributed to your beneficiaries and will lower the value of your estate. The part of your estate that has to go through probate will just be the leftover stuff like household goods, cars, house, etc.
For your situation where you want the daughter to get an extra share and the brother to give up his share, here’s how you can do it. Set up two accounts where one account has 2/3rds of the money and one account has 1/3rd. Put the rich brother and sister on the big account and the other brother on the smaller one. Like this:
- Account 1: $1M. Beneficiaries: Sister and Brother$$$$
- Account 2: $500k. Beneficiaries: Brother$$
By default, Sister and Brother$$$$ would split the $1M in A1 and Brother$$ would get 100% of the $500k in A2. Each would end up with $500k. But Brother$$$$ could disclaim the distribution from A1 if he chooses. In that case, Sister would be the only beneficiary and would get the full $1M in A1. If you wanted to get fancy, you could have multiple accounts with Sister and Brother$$$$ and he could decide to only disclaim certain distributions. For instance:
- Account 1a: $500k. Beneficiaries: Sister and Brother$$$$
- Account 1b: $500k. Beneficiaries: Sister and Brother$$$$
- Account 2: $500k. Beneficiaries: Brother$$
With this setup, Brother$$$$ could decide to take only some of the distributions. He could take the 1a distribution and give up the 1b distribution. In that case, Sister gets half of 1a and all of 1b.
You might want to have the Sister also as a beneficiary of A2. That way if Brother$$ wants to give his share to Sister as well, he could disclaim the distribution. You can typically setup percentages for the beneficiaries. You could have Sister get a small percentage of A2 so that Brother$$ gets the bulk, like this:
- Account 1: $1M. Beneficiaries: Sister(47.5%), Brother$$$$(47.5%), Brother$$(5%)
- Account 2: $500k. Beneficiaries: Sister(5%), Brother$$$$(5%), Brother$$(90%)
The default is that everyone would get $500k. But if the if Brother$$$$ gives up his share of A1, Sister would get the bulk of his share due to her percentage and Brother$$ would get just a bit of A1. Both brothers could give up their distributions in both accounts and Sister would get all of it.
This may all seem a bit complicated, but it will greatly simplify the execution of your wishes and minimize the chances for hurt feelings. The fact that none of it has to go through probate means there’s much less chance for legal complications to foul up the financial distributions.
You sound like a compassionate person who raised great kids. You should be proud.
If your kids are compassionate too, you can talk to them about how you want to distribute your assets and they will understand. I’'ll bet, because they are decent people like their parents, they will support you wholeheartedly.
I agree with the posters who recommend a trust for the portion of the assets that you want to support your daughter’s in-laws. Think carefully about who should be the trustee for this and what should happen to the residuary in the even the beneficiaries don’t need it anymore. But, be sure to talk to you daughter and perhaps even the parents-in-law about what these offspring need. They may have other means of support that you don’t even know about. And work with an estate planning pro who can best structure the trust(s) to accomplish your objectives.
No. Don’t put this on your kids to decide when they are grieving. Instead, give them, and your executor, clear guidance through your estate plan on exactly how you want this handled.
I think they may admire their loving parents because while nearing the end of their lives, they want to be thoughtful and generous in supporting people who need it more. That’s a legacy children can be proud of.
I have a funny-because-it-didn’t-happen-to-me story about trying to be fair but failing miserably at it. A wealthy entrepreneur that I knew set up trusts for his kids with an equal number of shares of one of his startups. The trustee he selected was, to put it politely, a buffoon. At first, the trustee didn’t want to sell any of the shares of the company because he thought it would be disloyal to his friend. The company did exceedingly well and underwent an IPO shortly before his first child reached majority. She got control of the trust, sold all the shares, and had never-have-to-work-again money. The trustee let the shares ride in the other two trusts but, after its IPO, the company went into a tailspin and nearly went bankrupt. Daughter two came into her trust with enough proceeds from the stock to fund a couple of years of college or maybe make a down payment on a starter house. She was understandably disappointed and the trustee realized that he was at risk of being sued for violating his fiduciary duties. So he cashed out the last shares and invested prudently and carefully. Wait, no he didn’t because he was a buffoon. Instead, he put it all in a crazy hedge fund that was the rough equivalent of betting it all on 27 at the casino. Because the gods smile on fools sometimes, the hedge fund shot out the lights over the next few years before the third beneficiary came of age. She cashed out with several million dollars. Thus, one father managed to be scrupulously fair with the result that two of his daughters became quite wealthy and one likely spent her days seething with jealousy.
As noted upthread, we have had family difficulties with a trust too.
I think a strong rule of thumb is: do NOT appoint a family member as a trustee.
Doubly so if they are also a beneficiary.
In our case the sister does not seem to understand (or is wilfully misunderstanding) that this is not “Mom’s money, left to her to deal with as she sees fit”.
The concept of a trust as a legal entity, and of fiduciary responsibility, apparently eludes her, or is being deliberately ignored.
100% this. The last thing I needed after my father died was the drama unfolding with my brother. Dad did a lot of great things to help me in the run-up to his death, but the surprise(!) inheritance distribution was a headache, even tho I was the one who benefited more.
Hiding stuff around this wont end well for the living. It will create speculation and ill-will, and will be a burden to the one holding the secret. I agree with the family meeting idea to lay out what is being planned and get feedback and buy-in, and let everyone hear the explanations for “why”. Hiding the plan in a letter to one child will be a burden and will end up being resented.
You have almost the same situation.
Your well-off sons have had a (semi-)disabled sister since they were kids. They grew up dealing with her accommodations, whatever they were. With any luck you & your wife have successfully inculcated in them a gently paternalistic attitude towards her and they have understood since forever that she would become at least partly their responsibility to look after once you and your wife / their Mom were gone.
In the OP’s case that’s not true. His sons’ sister is fully normal and capable. But she married into disability. And not even married a disabled person, but married another normal person who is related to disabled people. And two of them, not just one.
In that situation being full of paternalistic compassion for the unfortunate is a much taller order and a much larger one for the OP’s sons than for your sons. I assume all four men are equally of the highest character, but the ask from each of them is yugely different.
I’m living this right now, but at least we finally got copies of the trust from the estate attorney BIL hired to sort through mom’s finances. We knew of
One trust , one annuity and one bank account. Long story short attorney discovered another forgotten trust and several bank accounts mostly empty. BIL has been secretive regarding details and slow on following up with attorney. Finally it’s all tied together in one account and let the disbursements begin. No. For one reason or another it’s still not happening. Not quite Jarndyce and Jarndyce but not counting chickens yet.
there is a saying:
when god brings death, the devil brings heirs.
it is better to have things well spelled out when there are multiple heirs.
While all of this is true, you owe (in my opinion) an explanation of the intended disposition of inheritance or lack thereof to children and other prospective inheritors, and the rationale behind it. If you elect to not bequeath anything to one or more offspring that is completely your choice and nobody is ‘owed’ anything from you that you have not previously promised to them but not receiving something that was reasonable expected, or being completely disinherited with no explanation is a kind of final “Fuck you!”, and a pain that extends any grieving indefinitely, even if it was anticipated or tacitly understood. At least leaving a letter that says, “I didn’t leave you anything because you disappointed me/don’t think you can handle the responsibility/feel that is more deserving/et cetera” at least gives something to respond to versus just a big void of disappointment and resentment. Your decision may not make everyone, or indeed, anyone, satisfied but at least they’ll know what they should be upset about.
And have a hard think about how inheritors are going to treat those who do not inherit as much or anything. Some wills and trusts seem purposed designed to stir up life-long resentments and create drama from beyond the grave, and the last thing a grieving spouse or child needs is manipulation or taunting from those who ‘made out’ in the inheritance pool. Not at least explaining your intent is just throwing gasoline on the fire of seething resentment and a sense that somebody was manipulating the situation to their benefit.
Stranger
If i were to hold a family meeting, i would first meet with each child separately, to give them space to react in front of me, and not in front of their sibs.
I think it’s good for everyone to know that everyone knows. So a family meeting is a way to get there. But i wouldn’t start there.
Yeah, but… Maybe it depends on WHY the one child has so much more need. Among our friends we have two different couples whose birth families have been virtually destroyed by their parent’s choosing to distribute their inheritance due to ‘need.’
In each case most of the sets of sibling children were doing versions of “fine” – they’d gone to school, developed the expected career paths, made the sort of money expected of people in those careers, married, had children who seemed to be following in their footsteps. basically normal successful lives though some were, oh, very upper middle while another was definitely lower middle class.
The problem came from the out-lier kid. In each case, the youngest of the set, who just “had never really found his way yet.” With many attempts at schooling/dropping out/addiction and alcoholism and multiple treatment stretches, messy divorces, and all that. The parents in both cases had noted (probably rightly) that the youngest had more ‘need’ and had little chance of ever being well self-supporting, and so favored them wildly in how they split the inheritances.
The other kids were at least peeved. Yes, that one child “needed” money more, but they saw it as just a continuation of their parents “favoring” that child. They had always been paying out more money to that child, paying for treatments/multiple wasted tries at college/legal costs in one case/just handing over money to keep them going with living expenses … and now they were “punishing” the responsible kids by saying you’re doing well so we’re giving almost everything to your loser brother.
Yeah, it was their money they got to choose. but there is much resentment tainting the other children’s memories of their parents, and zippo good feelings towards the kids that scooped up most the money.
That’s some real wisdom there. And not something I’d ever thought of. Thank you.
A small improvement might be to figure out your plan “A”, then meet with each of the kids separately to lay out plan “A” and get their feedback, then formulate a plan “B” based on each of their feedbacks. Then present plan “B” in turn separately. Rather than presenting plan “A” to kid #1 whose feedback results on plan “B” being presented to #2, etc. The point is you get to hear each kids’ objection to the same plan each time. Which will help you converge on a collectively acceptable plan.
Then finally present plan “E” or whatever to the group.
Good point. It also depends heavily on the personalities of the sibs.
My parents are long divorced and long deceased; their wills each split their money evenly among their 3 joint kids. So simple.
Two of us are rather successful / demi-wealthy and the third chose the path of manual laborer after graduating from college. No addictions, no messy divorces, no jail time, nothing bad. Just not interested in indoor work or in money. We each got the same upbringing and same financial support from the parents when we were young and even later when we were adults and parents were still alive. No rivalry or jealousy there.
I fully expect I’ll need to subsidize my laborer bro in old age when his body can’t work and SS won’t even pay for a roof over his head, much less groceries. My other well-off brother finds that idea anathema. His view: “Laborer-bro made his decisions; let him live with the consequences. Not my problem.”
Bottom line: people are individuals no matter the similarity of their upbringing.