<p>
</p>
<p>Yes I would make different provisions for a child still in HS/college vs. a child who is already out on his/her own. I would not take a child’s SO’s wealth into account as that could disappear quickly in the event of a split. But that’s just my opinion.</p>
<p>I think leaving more money to a child more in need (assuming that child is responsible and not in need because of gambling, drug addiction, or some other financial irresponsibility) makes sense. </p>
<p>If one child is wealthy and another is middle class or poor, giving money to the wealthy child is like sending coal to Newcastle. It will barely be noticed. The poor child will appreciate it. It is money after all, not love. As long as the disparity is explained there should be no problem.</p>
<p>^To me, it would depned on what kind of need they are in. If they are struggling financially, that’s one thing. But if all children lead a comfortable life and the difference is that one can afford luxury more than others, I wouldn’t try to compensate it with inheritance.</p>
<p>It also depends on the amount of money. Ten million split evenly provides well for all. Fifty grand split any way would not make a lot of difference to a wealthy person.</p>
<p>It is very nice to be in the position of not worrying about what someone else might leave you some day.</p>
<p>Regarding future grandchildren: The way H’s parents have it set up seems to be fairest way to me. When we have grandchildren, we will set up our will in a similar fashion.</p>
<p>Everything gets split evenly among the children. A set amount is stated to be given to each grandchild—for example, $5,000/grandchild or whatever set amount the person decides upon and puts in writing.</p>
<p>I feel it’s proper to split inheritance money evenly. From there, if one sibling wants to give up a portion of their inherited money to another, it’s their choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It certainly isn’t wildly unreasonable, but can result in unequal beneficiaries in a way that probably wasn’t intended. For example: what about children that aren’t born yet? I know two families where people left money to either grandchildren or nieces/nephews directly: in both cases, the younger siblings subsequently married and had children who did not share in these bequests at all. If the legatee had left the money only to their own children or siblings, ALL of the children of same would have benefited. I think that was clearly the intention. </p>
<p>In our family, my sibling was lucky enough to be able to have 4 children, whereas I was only able to have one. Her husband comes from a very wealthy family, and all of their children went to private schools, went through college with no financial restraints without incurring any debt, and will inherit millions through generation-skipping trusts. Would it be “fair” if her children and mine got an equal share of our parents’ comparatively modest estate? If don’t think so. Our parents had two children and it is fair to divide the assets equally between us, even if my sib is married to a rich man and I am not.</p>
<p>BTW, my mother had one brother, who lived with my grandmother until her death. She died intestate. My mother went to the probate court and requested the forms to sign to relinquish any claim on her mother’s estate, which she did. She didn’t “need” the money, and didn’t feel the need to force her brother to sell his house in order to get “her half” of the estate. Sadly, we know of other families where the parental real estate was imediately put on the market and the caretaking sib rendered homeless, even though the house would not have been kept had the caretaking sib not made it possible for their parent to live there through their financial and physical support. :(</p>
<p>Just a couple points about the flow of money, and the law. If there were no will, the money would flow equally to OP and her brother at her father’s death. However, if the brother were to die before the father, she’d get it all–while if she were to die first, the money (in most places) would be split, half to her brother, and the other half divided among her children. If the brother inherits the money, and then himself dies without a will, in most states his sister will inherit all of it (assuming he still has no children).</p>
<p>So there is a difference between the two “families,” and it’s because the brother has no children. Sensible estate planning would take this into account–especially if there’s a lot of money, and the grandfather wants to keep it “in the family.” I can easily imagine a grandfather like this leaving the son’s portion to him in trust for his lifetime, with the remainder to go to any children of his body, and next to the other grandchildren. This would prevent the son from leaving it to anybody outside the family.</p>
<p>I generally think it’s a good idea to treat children as equally as possible. But in this case, the children’s situations are really quite different.</p>
<p>Such an interesting thread. Former financial planner here: the STRONGLY advised by our firm rule of thumb is to treat children equally in the will. Sometimes adjustments are made to offset previous gifts to kids. So, even if one is way better off than the other, treat equally (except the offset adjustment for example if a large gift was prevously given). The only exception is if a child is medically unable to be self supporting. In that case, setting up a trust for the future care of that person is in everyone’s benefits - esp. the adult siblings that will be under less financial obligation after mom and Dad are gone. The rule of thumb is to prevent the “Mom loved you more” or “I am getting penalized for being successful” feelings discussed above. The grandchildren issue is more complex. My cousins were gifted equally to my brother and me, but since there were 4 of them and 2 of us, some might have said it was not fair. But, as stated above, they are their own people and grandparent wanted to help with each grandchild’s edcuation as was his right with his money. I don’t think it was preferential to my aunt’s family or any individual cousin! My grandfather was more generous with presents and graduation gifts ($) to the grandchildren he was more proud of and that was potentially divisive. It was not discussed however. My mom, a wise woman, is very open about her future plans. She will give each grandchild a one time gift (not a life changing amount, but enough to help with a semester of grad school tuition or part of a first home downpayment) after undergrad and the rest will be split equally between my brother and me. She has a comprehensive list of her valuable items with names on them. We all anticipate the emotionally unhealthy SIL being a problem and I will be the executor, so mom is trying to prevent some future problems for me. My parents were intentionally equal always: my education cost them more, so brother got a car for his graduation; their contribution to my wedding was more, so brother got the valuable family ring for his fiancee. I intend to follow my parents’ lead; no money sibling issues with brother (yet) despite his wife’s attitude. She is estranged from all her siblings and that side of nephews/niece’s since her own mother’s estate was settled. Very sad and all too common when money divides families.</p>
<p>My sister is has a high-powered career and no children. That lifestyle brings with it both positives and negatives. I don’t think it’s fair that she should inherit less than I do simply because I chose to be a stay-at-home-mother of 3 and now have a lot less money than she does. For one thing, despite the fact that she says they “decided” not to have children, I happen to know that they tried for a while and couldn’t, and then “decided” not to pursue other avenues. So to me it’s fair to gift the children equally, regardless of financial position. I also don’t think she’d at all mind my children receiving a portion, since she loves them and they are family too. It’s kind of odd to see them as “my side.” They’re her side, but a different generation. Her husband’s relatives are the ones who aren’t her “side.” </p>
<p>Of course, this is all easy for me to say because my parents are practically destitute lol.</p>
<p>When my MIL’s mother died, she divided her estate among five of her six kids and the children of her son from whom she was estranged. My MIL was the only one who didn’t own a home and wasn’t financially secure and she got enough to make a downpayment, but the youngest sibling wanted to start a business and went to all his other siblings to ask for their share to start the business. They didn’t need the money and said yes, deciding that since they had all voted to give him the money my MIL had to do the same, and he would pay it back a little at a time. He is now quite wealthy and my MIL died destitute and homeless for that and other reasons. Her mother surely wouldn’t have wanted that outcome. One of her sisters was the executor and decided at that time to build a new home, so she moved into the mother’s house and lived there for months, using the estate’s checking account for her living expenses and draining it completely. She also took every light fixture from the house when she finally moved out. Gotta love people!</p>
<p>My mother has all her affairs in order and it’s ironclad. The personal effects are in the home in which she lives with my brother (his house) and he will distribute them based on her expressed wishes. He is also responsible to make sure that my sister and her daughter never get near my mother’s emeralds. It was my mother’s decision to leave everything to my brother with the exception of personal gifts. During her life, my mother has given each of my kids one substantial gift and has a set amount for each of them in her will. Her reasoning for this is that my grandfather left two of his four grandchildren (my brother and sister) life-changing amounts of money, while leaving nothing to the other two (me and brother who cares for mom) and brother who cares for mom is very, very wealthy on his own with no heirs, so it’s always been taken for granted that he would look after my kids in his will. He is very close to them. It would be ironic if my kids ended up with more money someday than my sister’s kids because she hasn’t worked in years and has spent very lavishly, and her MIL who is quite comfortable, has made clear that she would only leave her estate to her sons. When BIL died, his kids were cut out of her will and her estate will go to her remaining son and to his kids. My Mom also cut out sister’s kids.</p>
<p>Interesting thread as I am in the very early stages of handling my mother’s estate and as I review the documents I am finding that her assests are not divided equally among myself and my siblings, and they are really not equal among the grandchildren. And no, as the Extr. (since I have access to all of the documents) I am not receiving the largest share, nor are my children. </p>
<p>I know that money does not equal love, but I am left to wonder why she chose to divide things as she did. I take comfort in the fact that as I begin this process I am carrying out her wishes, and not making the decisions myself. However, I hope that when the process is complete, I still have a relationship with the rest of my family because people are going to be hurt - and rightfully so.</p>
<p>I suppose if you want to leave a legacy of favoritism you should also leave a note explaining your reasons. For now, the pain of losing my mother is still very raw, and I am left to wonder why the differences in how we are being treated without any hope of getting an answer. I am finding that estate administration is a painful process, and insead of having the support of my siblings, I will no doubt have conflicts.</p>
<p>momof2, my brother’s on-and-off girlfriend has a similar history. (She has very strained relationships with her own parents and siblings, often over monetary squabbles.) Before my mother passed away in August, she said “Please don’t let brother’s girlfriend” (to whom she had never been close) “go through my things after I’m gone.” Three days after my mother passed, brother’s girlfriend was demanding to know where my mother’s wedding rings were! Well, my mother always did have remarkable insights into others’ character. :(</p>
<p>Tired already, I am sorry for your loss.</p>
<p>Sarabande, so what did you tell the girlfriend?</p>
<p>I let her know that my mother had given me her wedding rings nine days before she passed. </p>
<p>Her answer: “Did she put it in writing?”</p>
<p>I nearly fainted away.</p>
<p>tired already, I’m sorry for your loss. Zoosermom, you really do have the most amazing family! :D</p>
<p>You nearly fainted away? You must be a southern lady. Good for you! I would have decked her. Is she currently on again or off again?</p>
<p>I have a friend with 3 teenage boys. One son was injured in an accident (everything fine now, but required reconstructive surgery and physical therapy) and in the course of things, got a substantial settlement and now has a six figure fund (i assume held in trust). So now how does my friend account for this in dividing up her money / support as the kids grow older?</p>
<p>Consolation, white trash can be so interesting. Gothic even! Maybe I should write a book.</p>
<p>Of course my sister would sue me for every penny, but what the heck. I’m really not kidding when I say that we will have someone at brother’s house when my mother (may she live 100 years) passes away to make sure my sister doesn’t get in there.</p>
<p>Wish you’d been there with me, zoosermom! She’s currently on again, sadly. I strongly suspect she’s the one persuading my brother about the unfairness of my father giving gifts to his grandsons.</p>
<p>Well isn’t that just the way? There is always someone to stir up the pot. If it were meant to be her business, they would be married. But they aren’t married, so it’s nothing to her. I hope your mom had very expensive rings that look great on you or someone of your choice. My MIL had one good piece of jewelry, which was a stunning platinum solitaire from Tiffany back in the dark ages. She left it to her youngest granddaughter, my SIL’s child. Some people thought I should be upset as my girls are the oldest granddaughters, but my MIL believed with her whole heart that the only real grandchildren are your daughter’s children, so it was right that the ring should go to that child. Who is a lovely young lady, as is her mother. No hard feelings from us at all. MIL was tiny like me and had no choice but to leave her mink to me as it would fit no one else (ironic that a woman with no money had a diamond and a fur, no?), but I don’t do fur, so I passed it along to the same granddaughter. She appreciated it a lot.</p>