S/O: Wills and complex questions regarding your beliefs.

[KidsHappen]

What do you personally think the reason for and fairness behind a will is? I hear many people talking about what is fair and I really don't understand the logic behind this. IMHO, people are not entitled to an inheritance just because they are related. It is not a right or something that someone deserves.

 

I have no intention of leaving anything behind. I hope to work it out so that I have as close as possible to what it takes to get me through to death but I also intend to spend what we have earned in our life time. I feel no obligation to accumulate anything for my heirs.

 

Both my hubby and I have life insurance policies for the purpose of providing for those that are left behind. I am my hubby's primary beneficiary and he is mine. My brother is secondary for both of us for the sole purpose of taking care of any minor children and the education of all children left behind. Of course, he is also named as the children's guardian should we both die. It currently stands that I have three minor children. All money would go to him to raise these three children and provide college money for the adult children. He would leave his job and stay home with them so this would be his only source of money. He would need it all to do this.

 

Now, once all of the children are grown, we will probably arrange it so that the proceeds are evenly distributed to all living children only. Perhaps with some going to my brother as well for all the help he has provided over the years to both my hubby & I and our children. But I would feel not obligation to leave anything to second generation decendents. So if one child prededeased us we would distribute the proceeds amoung the remaining children. But this would go to them as gifts because I want to give it to them as their parent not because they are entitled to it or deserve is just because they are related.

 

As far as any heirlooms, I will try to designate who those go to because I know certain child want certain things. If we had no children, everything would go to my brother.

 

I am just wondering if I am alone in these thoughts. :confused:

[Corraleno]

DH and I did our wills many years ago and we have stipulated that if one of our children predeceases us, then the deceased child's share would be divided among their children (assuming they have children).

 

Personally, I wouldn't consider it fair that one set of grandchildren would get nothing just because their parent died young ~ that seems like they are being doubly punished. For example, if my DH died and my MIL left everything to her other son, my niece would get a huge chunk of money and my kids would get zip, even though my MIL has just as much contact with our kids as with BIL's daughter. That seems really unfair to me. Fortunately, MIL's will stipulates that if DH predeceased her, then his share would pass to his children.

 

OTOH, I think that if one child takes care of an elderly parent for years and sacrifices a lot, while other children do nothing, then it's fine for the parent to distribute their assets in a way that reflects that. Or if one child went off the rails and the parent knows the money would be quickly squandered, it would make sense not to leave money to that child. But in a situation where the parent's relationship with his/her children was reasonably equal, I think cutting out the offspring of a deceased child is rather unkind.

 

Jackie

[OnTheBrink]

I want to leave my kids with something, so they are the benefactors of my life insurance, retirement accounts, pension (when I qualify for it), and bank accounts. But, these are left ONLY to my kids. No one else.

 

I know my dad has me and my brother as benefactors of his investments, so I expect to receive whatever those funds are when he dies. It's not that I *expect* a fat inheritance simply because he's my dad; I just know how he has his accounts set up and I know my brother and I are the benefactors.

 

I'm 100% confident that my mother will be leaving me nothing; it will all go to my brother. I'm ok with that.

[KidsHappen]

Personally, I wouldn't consider it fair that one set of grandchildren would get nothing just because their parent died young ~ that seems like they are being doubly punished. Jackie

 

See, I don't understand this. The grandchildren don't automatically get anything. It is entirely possible that the decedent's children would spend all of the money themselves and not leave any to their children or they may not even have grandchildren (the grandchildren). According to that logic, it wouldn't be fair if the children of the decedent had an unequal amount of children because then some of the grandchildren would get more money than others depending on how many children their parents and aunts and uncles had. The grandchildren are not being punished. They aren't entitled to anything and if they received anything it would be a blessing (gift).

[Orthodox6]

A will is a cultural item. In general, its purpose and content reflect the surrounding cultural expectations, sometimes the legal requirements, for disposition of money and other tangible property. From a legal standpoint, a will prevents literal warfare over whatever remains, following the decease of an individual.

 

Cultural "norms" exact varying results from a person's death. What used to be called "laws of primogeniture" no longer rules our cultural expectations for a will in the U.S., for example. Similarly, were my husband to die, nobody would expect me to die via "suttee".

 

Today, I think that individuals possess the right and the freedom to do whatsoever they wish with their tangible property. Expectations continue, however, that immediate family are the correct recipients.

 

It is very depressing to watch how people react whenever money and tangible property are on the horizon. Often one hears that ones true character emerges when money is on the table -- and generally it does not turn out to be an enviable character.

[coffeefreak]

You're not alone, but that doesn't mean my heart doesn't hurt when I think about it. I logically know that I'm not "entitled" to anything when my parents die, but I totally get what the Bible means when it says, "Where your treasure is, so also your heart will be" Luke 12:34. It hurts that my parents value others above me - their dd. To be fair to my dad, we don't know what is in his will, but we (my sister and I) expect him to leave something to one of his "hunting buddies." My mom however, has left everything to my kids. That. hurt. It hurt me, it hurt my sister (who has no children), it hurts. My sister and I have talked about it, and we're going to be grownups about it, after all, hopefully this won't happen until my children have children etc, but it still hurts. Not to mention the fact that, a 3rd party will have control of the money (if they're minors) and it will be given to them when they're 18! I don't want them to have that much money when they're 18! But I digress (sorry). It hurts me because it's my Mom's way of saying she only has a relationship with me so she can have a relationship with her grandkids, and she values them above me. Trust me on that one. As for my sister, it hurts her because she feels second best and like she doesn't count because she didn't get married or have kids. My hope is, we are able to at least get the heirlooms we'd like, so she'll have something from the family. I doubt it though.

 

When we were putting together our estate, we were told by a Christian counselor that you have to think of your estate like a last "gift." That's how everyone left behind views it. They feel valued and loved if they are included. And, among siblings, if it is not divided up fairly, without reason, it leaves a lifetime of scars. When we're older, and have no minor children, we're going all or nothing. Our kids will get all divided equally among them. If one is deceased (God forbid), it will pass on to their heirs. Done. I don't want to hurt my kid's relationship with each other, even if it "shouldn't matter." I assume it will be hard enough for them as it is.

 

Blessings!

Dorinda

[SonshineLearner]

I think that it's always been something that parents normally want for their children. It's like their "start" in life. At one point, it would be a share of land.... animals to start out with... houses to move into.... I totally would love to be able to leave my children with property and or money to help with life. Especially now that it seems like they'll have a harder time with our economy. I think that a will spelled out fairly will help. My husband's mom has said that her four children will receive the $$$ she has when she dies. If one of them has no children... and that son dies... that money will be put back in the pot... If my husband dies... then his children will receive the split money (my daughter receives 0). Although... last I heard... she thinks she'll skip all of her children... go straight to the grandchildren.... and either leave out one of the g-kids who inherited and spent all of the money.... or give that money to the g-kids children... (her greats)

Basically... we'll know when she dies. I don't think it'll be possible to spend all of her money... and at the beginning when she told me about it... the insurance money that her husband left her... that she didn't know about.... whatever is left after her is a gift kinda from her husband to his children.... :-) Something like that.

We're as broke as broke could be... so if we get some... cool... if not... well... we don't. I'd personally rather her give us $$$ so we could fly out and see her once a year. We're too broke to do that.

[coffeefreak]

I'd personally rather her give us $$$ so we could fly out and see her once a year. We're too broke to do that.

 

That's what my paternal grandparents do. They are living comfortably because they were savers. Each Christmas and Birthday, they are more than generous. If they hear of a need, they give to that person AND all the siblings. They want to see us, so every couple of years, they pay for us to fly out and stay in a hotel. I hope to do that one day, bless my kids and grandkids while we're living, as opposed to dead.

 

Dorinda

[Miss Marple]

I don't think anyone is entitled to anything :-). And I don't believe anyone can determine what is fair because someone else will think it unfair.

 

Sometimes children/grandchildren can make life so difficult for the parents/grandparents that they have no desire to see any of their estate given to said difficult child. I think that is just.

 

We were given some advice once that seemed to make a lot of sense. If one is going to write someone out of a will, and that someone would be a logical person to include in the will, then it is best to give a small amount in order to show that the person was considered at the time the will was written. This will make it more difficult to contest the will.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

DH and I did our wills many years ago and we have stipulated that if one of our children predeceases us, then the deceased child's share would be divided among their children (assuming they have children).

 

Personally, I wouldn't consider it fair that one set of grandchildren would get nothing just because their parent died young ~ that seems like they are being doubly punished. For example, if my DH died and my MIL left everything to her other son, my niece would get a huge chunk of money and my kids would get zip, even though my MIL has just as much contact with our kids as with BIL's daughter. That seems really unfair to me. Fortunately, MIL's will stipulates that if DH predeceased her, then his share would pass to his children.

 

OTOH, I think that if one child takes care of an elderly parent for years and sacrifices a lot, while other children do nothing, then it's fine for the parent to distribute their assets in a way that reflects that. Or if one child went off the rails and the parent knows the money would be quickly squandered, it would make sense not to leave money to that child. But in a situation where the parent's relationship with his/her children was reasonably equal, I think cutting out the offspring of a deceased child is rather unkind.

 

Jackie

 

:iagree::iagree: I also might be inclined to set up a trust for a child that might squander it:)

 

Now obviously if I have nothing to give to my child, then so be it. Obviously, it is important to take care of your retirement needs so that you will not be a burden to your children. I hope to still be able to leave something behind though since he is my son:) I think family should stick together as much as possible. I realize though that that is not always possible:(

[Mary in VA]

I believe wills are to leave instructions as to what should be done with your property/money after you die and provide for any minor children and spouse. Also most importantly, identify guardians for minor children should they lose both parents. After children are grown I think no one should expect anything from a will. I always told my MIL we wanted her to spend her money on herself, take a world cruise. Unfortunately she was in poor health and didn't have that opportunity. Ideally you should leave enough for those behind to take care of your last expenses. Because my mother spent her last couple of years in a nursing home, that is exactly what happened with her. Both my mother and MIL had given us items that meant something to them before they died. They enjoyed giving them and we enjoyed receiving them with no sadness involved.

 

Just my 2 cents,

Mary

Edited March 6, 2010 by Mary in VA

[Corraleno]

See, I don't understand this. The grandchildren don't automatically get anything. It is entirely possible that the decedent's children would spend all of the money themselves and not leave any to their children or they may not even have grandchildren (the grandchildren).

I understand that no one is "entitled" to an inheritance, and that people can distribute their assets in any way they please. But for me, personally, if one of my children predeceased me, I would WANT my grandchildren by the deceased child to have a share of my assets. Unless they were junkies or members of a cult or something, I would feel terrible about cutting them out of my will, just because their mother or father died young. Similarly, if DH predeceased his mother, and she left everything to her other son and nothing to her grandkids on DH's side, I would be very hurt and upset by that, because her relationship to all three grandkids is the same, so for one grandchild to get a huge inheritance and the other 2 get nothing ~ as a result of tragically losing their father ~ would seem really cruel to me. But that's just me, and our family, and I understand others feel differently.

 

According to that logic, it wouldn't be fair if the children of the decedent had an unequal amount of children because then some of the grandchildren would get more money than others depending on how many children their parents and aunts and uncles had.

I don't think it's unfair that the distributions would differ depending on how many children each family had, because the money would originally have gone to the children, and then to the grandchildren, so that's how it would have been distributed had one of the children not died young. OTOH, I do know of cases where the children did not need the money and the testator left everything directly to the grandchildren, in equal portions (per capita and not per stirpes). Per stripes distribution is actually fairly common in trusts that stay in effect for X number of years and then the assets are distributed equally to all descendants then living.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

I just wanted to add that in my previous posts, I was only talking about situations where the deceased parent's relationship with his/her children & grandchildren were reasonably equal ~ I certainly don't think children are "owed" an inheritance as a birthright, even if they don't have a relationship with the parent.

 

My mother and I have never gotten along and I do not expect to be included in her will. Even if she decided to include me, I would turn it down in favor of my 2 siblings who live near her and are close to her. My kids have very little contact with her, and I wouldn't accept anything for them either. My brother has 2 special needs kids and they need the money far more than my kids do.

 

Jackie

[Alice]

I agree with the OP in principle, that any inheritance that is left is a gift and not an obligation or something owed to you. However, I do think that for better or for worse, most people see what they are left by a family member as a reflection of how much that person loved them. (Not that if they don't have anything to leave, they aren't loved but that if there is an unequal amount left to different people the others feel slighted.) That might not be true or right, but it's what most people feel.

[StephanieZ]

Everyone is free to do their own thing, in general, in the U.S. We're such a melting pot / salad bowl here that there is a broad spectrum of philosophies on inheritance. I don't know that there is a right or wrong here (so long as wills aren't used to create discord via favoritism, punishment, etc.).

 

FWIW, I think an estate advisor would advise you to change your beneficiaries on your insurance policies. You should have your spouse as your primary and as secondary you should have "estate of Mrs. Me". Then, in the event that your spouse predeceases you, your will would govern distribution from the estate (i.e., to a trust to benefit your dc that your brother would admister.

 

There are many reasons for this. . . case in point. . . If your brother dies in an accident days/weeks/years after your death. All that $$ you had left him through insurance will now be governed through HIS estate. . . and go to his spouse or kids. NONE to yours. Second possibility: he divorces a year or two after your death. His spouse may/will have rights to half that $$. Etc etc etc. Your brother has a personal $$ crisis. . . all that $$ is vulnerable to his creditors. . . etc etc etc. Your brother gets seriously physically or mentally ill, he may not have any way to shield the "kids $$" from his own creditors/liabilities, even if he has the character and mental status to do so.

 

So, anyway, I'd advise talking to an estate atty to redraft your will and update your beneficiaries.

 

(And, no, never make your child(ren) the beneficiairies unless perhaps you have only one ADULT child. . . because that has loads of pitfalls as well.)

 

For our wills, we have it done that way. . . (spouse as 1st, "estate of. . ." as second) on the advice of our attorney.

 

I don't think anyone has any obligation to leave an inheritance -- beyond making sure of the welfare of the spouse and any minor (or otherwise dependent) children. I encourage my mom to spend her $$ while she can. That said, a responsibly managed life will likely leave some $$ at the end, since you don't usually know if you'll die at, say 76, 86, or 106. . . and I'd hate to enter my 80s, 90s, or older, with 0 in the bank. . .

 

While our kids are young, we have loads of insurance and a carefully crafted will to ensure their comfort, safety, and education. There would be some leftover $$vfor a nest egg for their future, and plenty for their custodians to quit a job, buy a bigger house, etc.

 

Once our kids are all independent adults, we'll drop our massive life insurance, and just focus on caring for our own aging/retirement needs.

 

In any event, dh's parents and my own parents were generous to us. . . They paid for our education, cosigned our first mortgages, gifted us significant monetary gifts in our young adulthood to subsidize grad school, etc.

 

We plan to do the same for our own kids to the extent we are able, including our commitment to funding a (solid, if not ivy league) 4 year college for all of them, and some smaller helps for grad school/down payments/cars etc in their young adulthood. Doing that for our own kids, reflecting what our parents did for us, is the best way we know to honor our parents' gifts to us. Saving cash for them to inherit when they are 50+ (and hopefully the harder parts of building a career and family are complete) seems petty compared to supporting them fully towards achieving lifegoals. THAT is the inheritance I want to leave for my kids!! Any cash/stuff that is left when dh and I go. . . well, that'll be incidental and accidental and a "bonus", but isn't a particular goal of mine.

[Anna]

In my family there were 8 kids. My parents wanted all 8 of us to equally divide whatever is left when they die. Two of my siblings died, both with surviving kids. Then Mom died. Dad's still living on his money.

 

He kept everything as was planned, to divide 8 ways equally even though only 6 of us are left. For my 2 deceased siblings shares... since they're no longer here to receive it, each of their 1/8 portion will be equally divided among their kids. It doesn't matter how many or how few kids the two of them had. The kids of each deceased sibling receive what would have been their parent's 1/8 share.

 

Hypothetical--- Suppose my 5 siblings and I each received $10,000 at time of my dad's death. And suppose my 2 deceased siblings had 6 kids total, 4 from one sibling and 2 from the other. The 4 kids from one sibling would each end up with $2,500., totaling their 1/8 share. The 2 kids from the other sibling would each end up with $5,000., totaling their 1/8 share.

 

This way all 8 of us or their kids each end up with the same $10,000. amount. We are all fine with the way my parents arranged this.

[KidsHappen]

I agree with the OP in principle, that any inheritance that is left is a gift and not an obligation or something owed to you. However, I do think that for better or for worse, most people see what they are left by a family member as a reflection of how much that person loved them. (Not that if they don't have anything to leave, they aren't loved but that if there is an unequal amount left to different people the others feel slighted.) That might not be true or right, but it's what most people feel.

 

I can even see where the first generation decendents (the children) would feel that they should receive an equal amount. It is the entitlement mentality of the second generation that perplexes me. If I write a will leaving my assets to my children, I expect them to go to my children for my children to do with as they wish. I do not expect them to pass it down to the grandchildren nor do I feel that I would owe any grandchildren anything over my other surviving children. I wouldn't be writing my grandchildren out of the will. They were never in it in the first place. There was never any intention on my part that anything go to them either directly or indirectly through their parents. I wouldn't be punishing them by not giving them something I woudn't have given them in the first place. I am just surprised that there seems to be some cultural expectation otherwise.

 

Now if someone wished to leave something to their grandchildren, well, that great. More power to them and if the children want to save something given to them by their parents for their children, that is also wonderful. But if I had a SIL or DIL (whose spouse, my child had died) and they felt that I owed their children something over my own still suriving children, well, I would be seriously perturbed by that. I understand that some people may wish to do differently in their own lives but I don't understand the expectation that that is THE way it should be done.

[Miss Marple]

Saving cash for them to inherit when they are 50+ (and hopefully the harder parts of building a career and family are complete) seems petty compared to supporting them fully towards achieving lifegoals. THAT is the inheritance I want to leave for my kids!! Any cash/stuff that is left when dh and I go. . . well, that'll be incidental and accidental and a "bonus", but isn't a particular goal of mine.

 

:iagree:

[Oak Knoll Mom]

See, I don't understand this. The grandchildren don't automatically get anything.

 

The children of the living child get the benefit of parents who come into some (possibly large) amount of money. Vacations, nicer Christmas presents, college tuition, first home, etc. are possible scenarios. If the children are still at home when their parents inherit the money, their benefit will probably be even greater.

 

That's why I see it as unfair. I guess I'm biased, though, because I saw my cousin go through this over the past few years with the other side of her family. Her cousins were getting large portions of their grandparents multi-million dollar estate while she got nothing--just because her dad was killed when she was thirteen. (She had to hire a lawyer just so she could get her aunt to let her see the will. Turns out she was supposed to get part of their estate.)

 

Then again, it's your money--give it to whomever you choose! :D

[KidsHappen]

FWIW, I think an estate advisor would advise you to change your beneficiaries on your insurance policies. You should have your spouse as your primary and as secondary you should have "estate of Mrs. Me". Then, in the event that your spouse predeceases you, your will would govern distribution from the estate (i.e., to a trust to benefit your dc that your brother would admister.

 

There are many reasons for this. . . case in point. . . If your brother dies in an accident days/weeks/years after your death. All that $$ you had left him through insurance will now be governed through HIS estate. . . and go to his spouse or kids. NONE to yours. Second possibility: he divorces a year or two after your death. His spouse may/will have rights to half that $$. Etc etc etc. Your brother has a personal $$ crisis. . . all that $$ is vulnerable to his creditors. . . etc etc etc. Your brother gets seriously physically or mentally ill, he may not have any way to shield the "kids $$" from his own creditors/liabilities, even if he has the character and mental status to do so.

 

So, anyway, I'd advise talking to an estate atty to redraft your will and update your beneficiaries.

 

 

 

You do have a point here and we were advised otherwise but there are problems with doing it any other way.

 

Both my hubby and I have my brother listed as secondary because if he had to care for the children he would have to quit his job and he would need the imcome to not only provide for them but also to live on. And then after the children left home he would still be unemployeed and needing support to make the transition so I didn't want their to be any limitations on how he could handle the money. I trust him implicitly to manage it correctly and provide for the children both as minors and once they become adults.

 

My brother is not married nor does he have any children and I feel fairly safe in saying that he never will. He manages his finaces extraordinarily well so it would have to be a freak emergency situation that would leave the funds vunerable to others. However, if his health was compromised or he predeceased us we would have a problem.

 

We are the primary beneficiary on his will and he does not have a secondary. There is no other person that either of us know that we would trust to handle our affairs. We would both need an unknown impartial third party to be the executor which would cost money. We could leave the custody of our youngest three to my oldest dd but I wouldn't want to make her responsible for handling the money in a way that all children would find fair.

 

We haven't found an answer to this conumdrum which is why we have left it as it is for the time being. As I said once all children are grown we will leave any assets to be equally divided amounst them.

 

Do you have an idea how people handle it when they have no trusted party left to handle their affairs fairly and in accord with their wishes?

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I can even see where the first generation decendents (the children) would feel that they should receive an equal amount. It is the entitlement mentality of the second generation that perplexes me. If I write a will leaving my assets to my children, I expect them to go to my children for my children to do with as they wish. I do not expect them to pass it down to the grandchildren nor do I feel that I would owe any grandchildren anything over my other surviving children. I wouldn't be writing my grandchildren out of the will. They were never in it in the first place. There was never any intention on my part that anything go to them either directly or indirectly through their parents. I wouldn't be punishing them by not giving them something I woudn't have given them in the first place. I am just surprised that there seems to be some cultural expectation otherwise.

 

Now if someone wished to leave something to their grandchildren, well, that great. More power to them and if the children want to save something given to them by their parents for their children, that is also wonderful. But if I had a SIL or DIL (whose spouse, my child had died) and they felt that I owed their children something over my own still suriving children, well, I would be seriously perturbed by that. I understand that some people may wish to do differently in their own lives but I don't understand the expectation that that is THE way it should be done.

 

I don't think that it is an entitlement expectation so much as a lack of expectation of disinheritance. It is of course up to the individual to decide where their assets go.

 

If you give money to your kids, it would be normal to expect that your grandchildren were going to be blessed by that, either directly by later inheritance or indirectly by increased opportunities created through that money (music lessons, travel, better education). So some people are looking at the non-inclusion of grandchildren of deceased children as being a double curse. They have lost their parent and now are considered not good enough or not family enough to be included in the blessing of inheriting.

 

I'm not saying that you need to go out and rewrite your will because you're wrong. Only that there are many would don't look at it the same way. FWIW, I've seen people break into houses to claim bbq grills and organs that they felt they "deserved."

 

And when my dh's grandmother died, my fil was very hurt that all of the granddaughters received jewelry, but none was saved for the future brides of his three sons (even specific items he had given to his mother were given to others). His sisters even went so far as to divide up his mother's Hummel collection such the ones he received were those that were chipped. The whole thing created ill will that just didn't have to be there. Although now it is pretty much a family joke that comes with lots of eye rolling about what can you expect from THOSE aunts.

 

This is a matter with lots of cultural expectations. In some cultures only sons inherit or some property is reserved for daughters. The daughters might get jewlery or textiles while the dil that has lived in the house and cared for the dead mother/mil is passed over. In the part of Germany where dh's family was from, it was customary for the oldest son to take over the farm upon marriage, even if the father was still living. The farm had to stay together so siblings got nothing. None of these is Right or Wrong, but there will be consequences to the patterns chosen.

[MelanieM]

I think people should do whatever they want to do and shouldn't get too hung up on what is expected, or what someone else thinks is right. Obviously you can't please everyone anyway, so what's the point in bending over backwards trying to do that very thing? Far better to go where your heart leads you and let that be enough.

 

I am the beneficiary for my mother's insurance, and we have discussed what she would like me to do with that money, which involves looking out for all five of her grandkids. I doubt she'll have a will drawn up to specify these things, but she trusts me to make good choices for the kids, and I will. I'm sure my brother won't be pleased about it all, but he'll get over it. And if he doesn't, that will be his choice.

 

Honestly, this is not the type of thing I can see myself taking personally. If my mother/grandmother/father didn't leave me anything and gave it all to the cats, I'd be cool with that. I might roll my eyes or wonder at their choices, and I might feel momentary disappointment, but I wouldn't choose to be hurt or offended over it. It's all good.

[Parrothead]

I really don't understand the logic behind this. IMHO, people are not entitled to an inheritance just because they are related. It is not a right or something that someone deserves.

 

:iagree:That is my take on it. My parents are bypassing my brother and I for inheritance. It is all going to dd. Db and I are both okay with that. Just because we are the children of my parents does not mean we are entitled to anything.

[Cammie]

FYI. In the US there have historically been two ways that inheritence has been passed down statutorily. Per stirpes representation holds that each branch of the tree gets an equal amount. If a person on the branch (the child) dies before the parent, then her share automatically goes to the grandchildren. The other way is called per capita. In per capita distribution, each living member of a certain generation is treated equally. If the parent has 5 children but 1 child dies before the parent, the estate is equally divided among the 4 remaining children.

 

I don't think there is anything inherently right or wrong, good or bad, in either method. It depends on the family, the relationships and the circumstances.

[Barb_]

I've seen many families ripped apart after a death. Not only over wills but over things like who gets the china or a hall chair. Sometimes it's greed, sometimes it's a (I agree, misguided) sense of what is fair, and sometimes it's misplaced grief tied to objects that are sentimental to more than one family member. It's such a tragedy when parceling out the goods destroys relationships.

 

Barb

[Tap]

My mother has no will, because she doesn't want to make the decision of who gets what. :lol:

 

She knows it will complicate things.

She knows it will cause issues.

She says "I'll be gone, so you guys can figure it out from there, that way no one can blame me for how it is distributed." She only has one main asset, her home, so there won't be much, but it is just the idea of her saying....No one will be happy, so why bother"

 

:lol:

 

 

Nice. Huh!

[coffeefreak]

My mother has no will, because she doesn't want to make the decision of who gets what. :lol:

 

She knows it will complicate things.

She knows it will cause issues.

She says "I'll be gone, so you guys can figure it out from there, that way no one can blame me for how it is distributed." She only has one main asset, her home, so there won't be much, but it is just the idea of her saying....No one will be happy, so why bother"

 

:lol:

 

 

Nice. Huh!

 

:lol:

That's one way to "be fair!"

[Mergath]

In all honesty, we probably won't have much to leave to dd when we're gone. We work as much as we have to in order to pay our bills, maybe put a bit into dh's retirement now and then, but we aren't actively trying to conserve money and assets for after we're gone. We plan to use what we have to spend as much time with dd as possible while we're here, and to give her the best education we can afford so that she can make her own way in the world.

 

If we did have substantial assets and several heirs, however, I don't think I could ever distribute it in any way other than evenly among them. If I had a dc that was deceased, their children would get their share. My conscience wouldn't let me do otherwise.

[Luanne]

... but I will say that we did have a situation in our family that ended in hurt feelings (on our part). My grandmother (my mother's mother) passed away 14 years before my great-grandmother did. My grandmother's sisters went in and cleaned everything out of my great-grandmother's house without saying a word to us and didn't offer us anything. It isn't that we wanted a lot of stuff worth money (although my great-grandmother did have a lot of antiques) ... we just wanted something to remember her by because we live 2 hours away from where she lived and we were all very close to her. We have nothing to remember her by at all now because of what happened. It hurt more than really after my grandmother passed away, they both acted like we were no longer related to their mother simply because of my grandmother's death.

[JoyfulMama]

I think any way someone does it there is the possibility that someone living will raise issue, as it won't be the way "they" would have done it.

 

So do it the way you want to, and don't worry about how someone else would do it.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I don't think that it is an entitlement expectation so much as a lack of expectation of disinheritance. It is of course up to the individual to decide where their assets go.

 

If you give money to your kids, it would be normal to expect that your grandchildren were going to be blessed by that, either directly by later inheritance or indirectly by increased opportunities created through that money (music lessons, travel, better education). So some people are looking at the non-inclusion of grandchildren of deceased children as being a double curse. They have lost their parent and now are considered not good enough or not family enough to be included in the blessing of inheriting.

 

 

:iagree: I do not see as an entitlement thing either, but I do see it as unfair treatment of a deceased child's children IMHO. They would have already suffered the loss of a parent and then to top it off, they may feel slighted to say the least if their deceased parent is not honored with a fair share:(

 

I really do not understand the entitlement thing in the sense that if I have children then I hope to bless them with some sort of inheritance since I love them. Now obviously no child is entitled to an inheritance at all, but I would think under the normal circumstances that one wants to do the best for their children such as passing on an inheritance as well as including the instilling the work ethics, values, and morals:) I would also think that one would want to pass on what one could, if one was able to, in a fair manner unless there were extenuating circumstances IMHO. I just do not see death as an extenuating circumstance to cut someone out of will when there are surviving grandchildren. To me, I would only cut someone out of will for some dire circumstances.

 

 

My 2 cents:)

[Mejane]

Our assets will be divided equally between our two children or their heirs if one pre-deceases. However, we would have no compunction cutting one or both out if they were to do something we considered abhorrent or were to lead a non-productive life. We'd rather leave the money to charity in that case.

[StephanieZ]

You do have a point here and we were advised otherwise but there are problems with doing it any other way.

 

Both my hubby and I have my brother listed as secondary because if he had to care for the children he would have to quit his job and he would need the imcome to not only provide for them but also to live on. And then after the children left home he would still be unemployeed and needing support to make the transition so I didn't want their to be any limitations on how he could handle the money. I trust him implicitly to manage it correctly and provide for the children both as minors and once they become adults.

 

My brother is not married nor does he have any children and I feel fairly safe in saying that he never will. He manages his finaces extraordinarily well so it would have to be a freak emergency situation that would leave the funds vunerable to others. However, if his health was compromised or he predeceased us we would have a problem.

 

We are the primary beneficiary on his will and he does not have a secondary. There is no other person that either of us know that we would trust to handle our affairs. We would both need an unknown impartial third party to be the executor which would cost money. We could leave the custody of our youngest three to my oldest dd but I wouldn't want to make her responsible for handling the money in a way that all children would find fair.

 

We haven't found an answer to this conumdrum which is why we have left it as it is for the time being. As I said once all children are grown we will leave any assets to be equally divided amounst them.

 

Do you have an idea how people handle it when they have no trusted party left to handle their affairs fairly and in accord with their wishes?

 

I can see your thought process here. I am not an atty (just an atty's kid, lol) so I don't have a good answer for you.

 

Brainstorming. . . perhaps you could split your estate, with some of it going straight to your brother (assuming he doesn't predecease you), and some set aside in a trust for the kids. Perhaps an "extra" life insurance policy with your brother as beneficiary? A nice chat with an estate atty might be helpful?? Or maybe google a bunch, or read a book? What a tricky situation. HTH.

[CAMom]

 

If we did have substantial assets and several heirs, however, I don't think I could ever distribute it in any way other than evenly among them. If I had a dc that was deceased, their children would get their share. My conscience wouldn't let me do otherwise.

 

Hmmm....this is why I said in the other thread that many people (and it seems many here) would find my grandma's estate unfair.

 

My mom and her brother chose to move out of state and only came to see my grandma once every few years. My uncle would rarely even speak with her when she would call. They both complained incessantly about her. They were both very happy that I was the one taking care of her.

 

Up until about 3 years ago, my grandma had each granddaughter (there were 6 in total) each receiving 5% of her estate and my mom and my uncle splitting the other 70% equally.

 

Three or 4 years ago, my grandma told me to find an attorney to revise her trust. I had been taking care of her for 6-7 years at that time. When I took her to the attorney, she told him she wanted to revise her trust because one of her granddaughters had passed away. She also told him that she wanted me to have 50% of everything. I was quite surprised.

 

In the end (and I'm currently executing the estate), she arranged it so that I got 50%, my mom and her brother got 15% each and the remaining granddaughters got 5% each. She actually spoke to my mom and her brother to see if they would have hard feelings at this turn. They both actually thought that I should get everything since I'm the one who invested my life in caring for her. None of my cousins have a problem with the inequity of it all either.

 

So, I guess in our case, my grandma was horribly unfair as she had a sizable estate and, obviously, I get far more than anyone else. I guess the other granddaughters should be upset that they get far less even though they have the same biological relationship? My mom and her brother, I guess, should be really upset that a grandchild is getting way more than they are?

 

To me, it makes sense that someone would leave more to the person with whom they had a close daily relationship. And, I still think that it's their money...they can divide it up however they want to.:)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Hmmm....this is why I said in the other thread that many people (and it seems many here) would find my grandma's estate unfair.

 

My mom and her brother chose to move out of state and only came to see my grandma once every few years. My uncle would rarely even speak with her when she would call. They both complained incessantly about her. They were both very happy that I was the one taking care of her.

 

Up until about 3 years ago, my grandma had each granddaughter (there were 6 in total) each receiving 5% of her estate and my mom and my uncle splitting the other 70% equally.

 

Three or 4 years ago, my grandma told me to find an attorney to revise her trust. I had been taking care of her for 6-7 years at that time. When I took her to the attorney, she told him she wanted to revise her trust because one of her granddaughters had passed away. She also told him that she wanted me to have 50% of everything. I was quite surprised.

 

In the end (and I'm currently executing the estate), she arranged it so that I got 50%, my mom and her brother got 15% each and the remaining granddaughters got 5% each. She actually spoke to my mom and her brother to see if they would have hard feelings at this turn. They both actually thought that I should get everything since I'm the one who invested my life in caring for her. None of my cousins have a problem with the inequity of it all either.

 

So, I guess in our case, my grandma was horribly unfair as she had a sizable estate and, obviously, I get far more than anyone else. I guess the other granddaughters should be upset that they get far less even though they have the same biological relationship? My mom and her brother, I guess, should be really upset that a grandchild is getting way more than they are?

 

To me, it makes sense that someone would leave more to the person with whom they had a close daily relationship. And, I still think that it's their money...they can divide it up however they want to.:)

 

Yes, but I see it as an extenuating circumstance if one child or grandchild has spent years taking care of the deceased person since that is a sacrifice so to speak. I do not see your situation as unfair and consider that an extenuating circumstance IMHO. Did the deceased grandchild have any children? I would only pass on that share to the deceased grandchild's children if it were me:)