Tap Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 How to do you feel about heirlooms and step families? Do you feel that if a step parent dies, that family's heirlooms of the ancestors should be distributed among all the children, or just the bio-kids that hold that families blood lines? I am not talking about that person's own belongings, but those of ancestors, who the step-children have had zero contact with, so there is no sentimental connection to. Assume the bio-children and step-children want the items equally, but for different reasons. (one bio wants the family lineage in tack, one step-child collects antiques, one bio wants them to pass on to younger kids on the bio-line, etc) Just for clarification Lets say that great-great-great-uncle Jack, hand made 4 wooden sculptures. The current owner of all 4 of the sculptures, Jane passes away. They were not displayed in the home, so the sculptures are not part of the immediate families memories. Every knew of them and saw them when they were brought out to look at, but not used on a daily basis. Jane is a direct decedent from Jack. Jane has 2 bio children, and 2 step-children that she raised from young childhood. The step children consider Jane their mother, and due to age, obviously never met Jack. Should the sculptures from Jack, get distributed to all the children, bio and step? Or should they go only to bio-children, or bio-related family members if the children don't want them? How about photos? If there is a large collection of family photos from all the ancestors from the past 100 years or so, should they be only given to the bio-kids or step-kids too. Does the reason each person wants them matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Totally depends on the dynamics in that family. Dh married his ex wife and adopted her two girls. They had a son together after that. When I married him, I had two boys from my previous marriage, and we had a daughter together. I couldn't imagine him only telling our dd and his son that they could have his things. He has raised my boys since they were 2.5 and 6. They are as much his as dd is. In the case of me. His kids never lived with us, and they were all older when I met him. I would disperse things to my three, but not his because his three have no ties to any of it, while mine do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS Mom in NC Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I have a biological brother and two step-brothers on my step-dad's side and we were raised together in the same home from the time we were 3,4, 11 and 12. I'm the executor of mom's and step-dad's will. The ONLY reason I agreed was under the condition that it be specified what mom and step-dad wanted done with their things. I told them if they weren't going to go to the trouble to decide what was done with everything, I wouldn't do it because I had no interested in making those decisions. No one's feelings matter in that situation, what matters is that the will is followed exactly. It's not my stuff to give or decide about; it's my job to see it's done according to their wishes. I don't feel entitled to other people's things unless they specify they want me to have it. Even then, there's no object on this earth more important than a family relationship. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne in CA Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Even in families where everyone is blood related this stuff can get yucky. I have a friend whose grandmother took up painting late in life. She painted scenes from memory of her childhood in Oklahoma. These paintings turned out to be highly collectable by oil barons. OMG, the fights over her early paintings that never sold. Those paintings are not even worth wanting, high schoolers do better paintings than that. If they were sellable, they would have been sold. But the fights. If even one person is unreasonable, everyone gets hosed. I would not give things to people who would consider them clutter, or not want them, if other people wanted them, but I don't think that things are always fairly decided by blood relationships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danestress Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 If Jane has allowed these children to see her as their mother, it seems so cruel to treat them otherwise now. If the bio kids want two statues but only get one, they lose a thing. If the step children are left out because they don't share DNA, they are losing a thing and also losing their belief that Jane considered them fully part of her family. I would rather see the bio kids all bent out of shape because they wanted 'more' than to see the step kids crushed by the realization that Jane or other family members don't see them as family. 19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aiden Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 If Jane has allowed these children to see her as their mother, it seems so cruel to treat them otherwise now. If the bio kids want two statues but only get one, they lose a thing. If the step children are left out because they don't share DNA, they are losing a thing and also losing their belief that Jane considered them fully part of her family. I would rather see the bio kids all bent out of shape because they wanted 'more' than to see the step kids crushed by the realization that Jane or other family members don't see them as family. :iagree: Because liking wasn't enough. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abba12 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 To be honest, for family heirlooms I would probably not give to steps. I can't imagine my dad giving any of his late-mothers things to his step kids. But part of it is family dynamic, he didn't move in with the kids until they were 7 and 9 I think. While they are part of the immediate family, they are not really part of the extended family tree. Adoptive kids, however, would definitely be in line because they have no other family, they've been adopted in. Historically, how are step-kids recorded in family trees? Obviously adopted children are recorded alongside biological, but are steps differentiated? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 If Jane has four kids and four sculptures, they get one each. I might let the bio kids pick first. Photos can be reprinted, touched up and made to look better than they did when they were first taken. There is no need to quibble over photos. Mainly I think items should go where they'll be appreciated. I have a situation where it looks like my child is likely to lose what might reasonably be considered to be her inheritance to her step-sibling. You gotta shrug and get over these things. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 To be honest, for family heirlooms I would probably not give to steps. I can't imagine my dad giving any of his late-mothers things to his step kids. But part of it is family dynamic, he didn't move in with the kids until they were 7 and 9 I think. While they are part of the immediate family, they are not really part of the extended family tree. Adoptive kids, however, would definitely be in line because they have no other family, they've been adopted in. Historically, how are step-kids recorded in family trees? Obviously adopted children are recorded alongside biological, but are steps differentiated? Our step or adoptive status should be noted. Our history should not be erased. On to of that, then perhaps other family members will "feel better" and not throw the "just remember, this isn't REALLY your tree" in our faces. Yes, been there with this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Historically, how are step-kids recorded in family trees? Obviously adopted children are recorded alongside biological, but are steps differentiated? The same way. Instead of being drawn in stemming from the union (the equals sign) Mr=Mrs, they are drawn in stemming from their biological parent, or the = between the subject and their previous spouse. So if Jane's first husband was Jack and second husband was Bob, it would be shown as: Jack=Jane=Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie12345 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I think that's going to be as individual as any other thing. As many issues as I have with my inlaws, I don't imagine they'd ever leave my son out of the group that way. Maybe because he was just 2 when I got married. Maybe because they don't use blood to define family. Maybe because they have SO. MUCH. STUFF. that they could use another half dozen grandchildren to offload it all. I have next to no experience with heirlooms and little interest in the concept, so I hope my own stepfather would send any hypothetical heirlooms to my stepbrother. Unless maybe they're worth a bunch and his intent is to make me rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Girls' Mom Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 It really does depend on the dynamic. My step-dad married my mom when I was 3. He always treated me as his daughter. When he passed away, other than some legal stuff because I was never legally adopted, I was treated as his daughter. I would have been hurt if it had been done differently. I have some of his baby pictures, and some other things.However, my bio-dad remarried when I was 19. I would be shocked if I inherited anything from her, and I don't feel like I should. I never lived with her, and mostly just consider her my dad's wife, not my mom in any fashion. I don't know her family, and they would think I'd lost my mind if I tried to claim anything that belongs to her or her ancestors. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 4 kids and 4 things seems like pretty easy math. I wouldn't let greed complicate it. Clearly, the step-siblings had more of a relationship with each other than they ever did with crafty grandpa Jack. It seems like a mistake to torpedo that relationship over one that never existed. Families are formed in different ways. Establishing a hierarchy based upon how one person happened to land in any particular family seems petty. It's not like any of the children DID anything to earn a place in their family. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriedClams Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I think it depends entirely on the individual family. We have 4 bio kids in my family, parents married for 55 years. Of the 4, 1 or 2 care about heirlooms. 2 of us loathe clutter. So, it would be a waste to save anything for the two of us. Fair would be to give everythingto the kids who care. I'd just ask. Talk about it. Be open. Communicate. It's just stuff. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I think it could be done either way. In our family, we would tend to distribute items with sentimental value among all, but something that was passed down by bloodline would be less likely to go to step-kids. But in part that would depend I think on their connection to their own biological family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 If step kids are adopted they should be included. If not, it depends on the family dynamics, but an interest in antiques is not the same as wanting to keep a family heirloom. Especially when the stepchild dies with a house full of antiques. Family heirlooms are likely to be kept by children whether there is an interest in antiques or not, but if stepchild's kids don't see it as an heirloom, but just something they got from someone their grandparent used to be married to, it's junk, it's not an heirloom. Obviously if they were raised like children of the stepparent but not adopted the dynamic might vary, but that's how I'd feel about family heirlooms from my stepparents. No emotional attachment at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cera2 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I think it depends on the reason someone wants the items. I think a person wanting them for family or sentimental value trumps wanting them because someone collects antiques. In the exact situation you described I would say the pictures all go to the bio family (because really, what is the point of someone collecting pictures of people they have no connection to when the family wants them?). I would also give the statues to the bio kids if they really wanted them. If they were agreeable I Would give one to each of the four (bio and step) with bio getting first choice. Had the statues been displayed in the home and a part of the step kids family history I would feel differently and lean toward giving each kid one statue regardless of the bio kids preferences but the step kids really have no connection tot he statues or memory of them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danestress Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 In the exact situation you described I would say the pictures all go to the bio family (because really, what is the point of someone collecting pictures of people they have no connection to when the family wants them?). .I guess it depends on the family. A lot of people would feel that they do have a connection within a family they grew up in from a young age with a woman they considered their mother. I became a step parent of a five year old - I did later adopt him, but that's just a legal status. I can't imagine telling him he has no connection to my great grandmother. I can't imagine saying "well, my bio children get first choice." If I thought my bio kids would take that attitude after I died, I would be devastated. Other families may feel differently. But to me, a step child considering you a mother is a beautiful thing. I would honor that in every possible way. My parents feel the same way. Hell would freeze over before they started estate planning based in which kids are genetic. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 It really does depend on the dynamic. My step-dad married my mom when I was 3. He always treated me as his daughter. When he passed away, other than some legal stuff because I was never legally adopted, I was treated as his daughter. I would have been hurt if it had been done differently. I have some of his baby pictures, and some other things. However, my bio-dad remarried when I was 19. I would be shocked if I inherited anything from her, and I don't feel like I should. I never lived with her, and mostly just consider her my dad's wife, not my mom in any fashion. I don't know her family, and they would think I'd lost my mind if I tried to claim anything that belongs to her or her ancestors. I was adopted by my stepfather. He's the only dad I ever knew. He met my mother when I was a baby, married before I was two, agreed to adopt me when I was four (I had been up for adoption with another family and mom changed her mind). It was made clear from the time I was nine or ten that I would receive NOTHING of my mother's or stepdad's. A step aunt threw a fit over the idea that her parents rings would be split between us three oldest grandchildren; they were to go to HER DAUGHTER as the eldest blood child. I received something from my bio grandmother on my dad's side, only because my bio sisters wanted me to have them. They had grandma, so I received her watch. Family dynamics can be complicated. For some, it's obvious what is kind and good. For others, the kindness comes from places that are surprising and the cruelty from those that are supposedly the "heroes". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairfarmhand Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 If Jane has allowed these children to see her as their mother, it seems so cruel to treat them otherwise now. If the bio kids want two statues but only get one, they lose a thing. If the step children are left out because they don't share DNA, they are losing a thing and also losing their belief that Jane considered them fully part of her family. I would rather see the bio kids all bent out of shape because they wanted 'more' than to see the step kids crushed by the realization that Jane or other family members don't see them as family. This. In our family, we started the discussion with "people matter more than things" as a reminder that it's just STUFF. Then we held drawings for things to make it as fair as possible.\ ETA: and why someone wants something (a collector vs. a "family heirloom connection") is irrelevant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plink Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 The entire point of heirlooms is to bind a family together. If any choice about who gets a specific item tears apart the family, you've completely lost perspective. Several generations ago we had a bunch of siblings who argued about an estate. The brother legally in charge decided that he didn't want to deal with the fighting so he put most of the heirlooms in a barn, and everyone went their separate ways to sulk. The barn was struck by lightning and burned - THANK GOODNESS!. Only after all the things were gone could the siblings be friends again. So sad. Don't wait for the barn to burn. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 For pictures, get really good copies made and put onto CDs for everyone in the family. I don't know about the knick knacks, but pictures are reasonably easy to reproduce. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahlanne Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 When my dad passed, my brothers were the only ones in the will to inherit a large area of land. My brothers did not agree with my dad's position and split the inheritance equally. However, there was a dispute over the land in that one brother wanted to keep it out of sentimentality and I had no use for it and could afford to pay upkeep from states away nor the insurance. We kept it as long as possible but in the end, I offered my brother my portion at a below average price so that he could keep the land for whatever reason he wanted. Ultimately we all sold the land together for more income as the land was causing hardship for my other brother as well. As for items that belonged to my dad, even though I wasn't included in the inheritance, we agreed that if there was a disagreement on an item, we would allow the one that wanted it to "buy out" the other siblings their part at a discounted price. I don't see why this could not be done with a sibling that wasn't blood related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I will just answer personally. One parent remarried after I was an adult and living out of state. The spouse is my parent's spouse and we have a cordial relationship, but at that age it is not a parental relationship. One of my siblings was a teen and was raised by both through the teen years and the children of the new spouse were slightly younger. That is more of a hybrid. In our family dynamics, we have a lot of very old things that have come down through the bio family on that side. The expectation is that those things would come to bio descendants, not to step-children. Same on the other side. It would be a major shock if it were done another way. Without more details, I think "family heirloom" trumps "I like antiques." In addition to being gifted or inheriting an antique, you can purchase them. Family heirlooms cannot be purchased in a store. There is no alternate route to acquiring a family heirloom. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junie Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 How to do you feel about heirlooms and step families? Do you feel that if a step parent dies, that family's heirlooms of the ancestors should be distributed among all the children, or just the bio-kids that hold that families blood lines? I am not talking about that person's own belongings, but those of ancestors, who the step-children have had zero contact with, so there is no sentimental connection to. Assume the bio-children and step-children want the items equally, but for different reasons. (one bio wants the family lineage in tack, one step-child collects antiques, one bio wants them to pass on to younger kids on the bio-line, etc) Just for clarification Lets say that great-great-great-uncle Jack, hand made 4 wooden sculptures. The current owner of all 4 of the sculptures, Jane passes away. They were not displayed in the home, so the sculptures are not part of the immediate families memories. Every knew of them and saw them when they were brought out to look at, but not used on a daily basis. Jane is a direct decedent from Jack. Jane has 2 bio children, and 2 step-children that she raised from young childhood. The step children consider Jane their mother, and due to age, obviously never met Jack. Should the sculptures from Jack, get distributed to all the children, bio and step? Or should they go only to bio-children, or bio-related family members if the children don't want them? How about photos? If there is a large collection of family photos from all the ancestors from the past 100 years or so, should they be only given to the bio-kids or step-kids too. Does the reason each person wants them matter? I think it depends on the situation. I do have my step-grandmother's dishes. She gave them to me personally before she died. Also, she had been my Grandma since I was 4. So, no blood connection, but definitely an emotional connection. Also, my father re-married when I was in high school. I hardly knew my step-mother or her kids. (Her kids are much older than I am, so already grown and out of the house before she married my father.) When he passed away, everything went to his wife. When she passed away several years later, everything (including my father's things) went to her children. I contacted my step-brother to find out if I could have my father's medals from Vietnam. They had already been given to a step-grandson who had known my father. I was afraid that I wouldn't get them, but my step-brother got all of the medals (and a photo album that I didn't know existed) back for me. He said that I deserved to have them because I was a blood relative and the step-grandson was not. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spryte Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I have a stepson and a significant amount of heirlooms from my mom's side. Nothing of great value, but very old, long history. Some things have been donated to museums already. I plan to divide it equally. My DSS is just as much a child of my heart as my other kids. Now, if he decides he doesnt want anything - he's welcome to say, "no thanks" - of course! We are also descendants of a founding father, and whenever we go to visit the publicly maintained home of said ancestor, there is quite the hullabaloo. DSS has been added to the official family tree there as well. Blood is fine, but there is a cultural heritage that DSS will always share with us as well. DSS is treated as a family member by the curators as well. Because he is. On a different side of the family, I'm the stepkid. I doubt very much I'll receive anything at all. But honestly, I'd be happiest with just a phone call here and there, and an opportunity for my kids to know that set of grandparents. Thrilled, actually. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanne in ABQ Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I was a step-daughter. I have four bio-brothers, and 8 step-siblings. My mom is still alive, but when my step-dad died, we gave almost ALL of his personal belongings to his bio-kids, especially things that were important to his and their family's history. In the OP's situation, since the statues have been passed down through several generations, and since they had been kept together all this time, I would offer them *all* to the oldest child first. If that child doesn't want them, I would offer them to each child, with the understanding that they are to be kept in the family line, and they are to be kept together. Again, I wouldn't split up the statues. Uncle Jack carved them all, and they've been kept as a set for long, long time. They are more valuable, and their prominence is more pronounced, if they are kept together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxbridgeacademy Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Like a PP said it depends on the family dynamic. If Jane raised the step children and they consider her 'mom' then they should get a sculpture. The pictures should go to bio kids and copies made for step kids. If, like in my family, the step parents didn't come along until near adulthood then they should get a sculpture only if it's in the will no matter their intentions or reasons for wanting the items. My Grandfather died when I was 4. His live-in girl friend gave his personal belongings and antiques to her children when she died. He didn't leave them to her in a will but the items were in her house and she said he gave them to her. My mom has 1 torn up picture of her dad, it sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momofkhm Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Stopped reading at some point so this may have been said. It's odd, my folks had a trust set up several years ago and their person who set it up told them to follow bio-lines. I have 3 kids. At the time my brother was not involved with anyone. Who was to say he wouldn't marry someone who had kids? Who is to say that I'm not going to go adopt an infant? I was upset at this unmet person on my brother's behalf. Because I'm sure that if bro did marry someone with kids that my folks would treat them as their own grandkids, if given that chance. Same if I adopted. Same if bro adopted. So who is this person to tell my folks to keep the inheritance in the blood lines??? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 The first house I ever bought was left by a woman to her nephew and his wife. They got divorced before she died and she never got around to changing her will. (It was a bitter divorce.) My impression from her realtor is that she didn't intend to have half of the value of her home go out of the family, but there was nothing they could do about it. She had had a stroke and was taken to the hospital, from which she was discharged into a nursing home--she never went home again, and I'm not sure that she could even talk. Her nephew had to clean the house out, have a coat of paint slapped on it, and put it on the market from two states away to raise the money to pay for her care while she was in the nursing home. Once she died, he found out that he was not the sole heir (as I believe he had thought) and had to split the ongoing mortgage payments with his ex-wife, which really, clearly rankled. It was one of those 'law of unintended consequences' lessons that has left me with an enduring but somewhat annoying habit of figuring out a lot of possible outcomes for any big decision like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewb Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 It really depends on family dynamics. Based on what you have written, I would say everyone should get a sculpture. Distribution of assets can really be a bit of a sticky wicket. When my husband's aunt passed away she left a small amount to all her nieces and nephews. Totally unexpected and very sweet. However, dh was very hurt when he found out he and his sister received smaller amounts then the bio nieces and nephews. He always felt that he and his sister were family when his mom and stepdad married. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annandatje Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 All items should be distributed in accordance with decedent's wishes. Decedent would have been deemed owner of his/her ancestor's property. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 The more I think on this, the more confused I get about how it would work in my family. My mom and stepfather have it written out who gets what in their will. My stepfather has been around since my brother and I were 9 and 13. They had two sons after they got married. Things are being divided equally between us, and my kids only know my stepfather as their grandfather. My step father has always considered us and the younger two equals when it comes to being his kids. They have never met my father. Step father's mother made it very very clear that we were step grandchildren, and we were never treated as anything but by her. I would never have even thought of getting anything when she passed. Now that I think about it, my younger brothers didnt either. Then there is dh's family. Dh's father is my boys' step grandfather. He has gotten to that point where he is getting rid of the important stuff so that it doesn't become an issue when he is gone. He has given my son a very expensive old guitar because he knows he loves to play. He has given several pieces of yard equipment (that kind of thing means a lot to him) to us with the understanding that the kids take them when they are out on their own. Several heirlooms have been allocated to myself and the kids. He has three grandkids from dh's sister, but only one of them comes around. To FIL, it isn't about who is blood, but who gives a darn that he exists. So complicated.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cera2 Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I guess it depends on the family. A lot of people would feel that they do have a connection within a family they grew up in from a young age with a woman they considered their mother. I became a step parent of a five year old - I did later adopt him, but that's just a legal status. I can't imagine telling him he has no connection to my great grandmother. I can't imagine saying "well, my bio children get first choice." If I thought my bio kids would take that attitude after I died, I would be devastated. Other families may feel differently. But to me, a step child considering you a mother is a beautiful thing. I would honor that in every possible way. My parents feel the same way. Hell would freeze over before they started estate planning based in which kids are genetic. When I think step parent I think of my own experiences and those of my friends. All of the step parents I know well are "bonus" parents to kids who have very involved biological parents. The kids are certainly loved by the step parent and their family but the relationship is not the same as the family has with biological children (mainly due to time, the "steps" spend significantly less time with them as they spend most of their limited time for extended family with bio relatives on both sides). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storygirl Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 My parents have six grandchildren. My four children were adopted. My brother and sister each have a step-daughter who joined the family as a teenager. One of them now has two daughters. Blood ties mean nothing; we are all family. There will not be any inheritance for anyone, other than dividing up some dishes and jewelry. When we divided up my mom's jewelry, my sister and I sat down with my sister in law and my two nieces and just talked it out. No one worried about things being equal; if someone wanted something, it was theirs. Now, there was a situation involving farmland in my husband's family. It is worth a considerable amount of money if sold, and DH's grandmother deeded it over to one of her three children, because he continued to live there and farm it after the other two siblings had moved away. I'm sure she had no idea that it was worth $$$$. The son that she gave it to did nothing for her while living in her home, and did not care for her when she got Alzheimer's; her care was managed by the other siblings. There was some resentment, but the other siblings did not make a fuss. After a long time as a bachelor, the heir got married to a woman who already had children and grandchildren. I'm sure all of that land will go to her family, which is not really fair at all. But it's how things are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.