<p>People do weird things with money. I had an elderly aunt and uncle die within three weeks of each other. They had set things up quite clearly. They had two children, one had predeceased them. The estate was split evenly between the two children if they were both living. One child had one child, and the other had six. The parent of the only child had died. The will was set so that the parent of the only child’s half was split between the grandchild and a niece :), but had the other child died, only three grandchildren of child two would inherit.<br>
I am thinking that that had the potential to be a real mess.</p>
<p>They also had a list of things they valued, which was quite helpful. There also was a clause that if anyone contested, his/her share would be eliminated. I do not know whether that is enforceable, but it certainly made people think. Absolutely lovely aunt and uncle. I was a bit surprised.</p>
<p>My FIL left all but a modest insurance policy to wife number two. My husband said that his dad never did anything for him when he was alive, why would he do anything when he died. Healthy attitude.</p>
<p>Well, in the OP’s case, the father is not dead yet. He just gifted his grandchildren and children money. I think it’s totally up to him what he wants to give to whom before and after his death.</p>
<p>The thing in this case, is, it doesn’t seem, on the face of it, like he is playing favorites by giving his grandchildren gifts. It seems as if he is trying to be quite thoughtful and fair to both of his children. I don’t know all details, of course. I expect that most grandparents give their grandchildren what they can. It is his money, of course, to do with as he pleases, but obvious favoritism is never good, IMO. However, that really doesn’t seem to be the case here.</p>
<p>I did read a suggestion somewhere that it may be a good idea to have inheritances to younger adults (under 30 or so) to be held in trust and released later, so that the inheritor is less likely to immediately blow the money during youthful financial inexperience or indiscretion. But if you know that your kids are fiscally responsible, then that may not be necessary.</p>
<p>I wish people would read the whole thread before coming on here and telling us over and over that “it’s HIS money.” No offense, but duh. No one is debating that point.</p>
<p>My grandfather gifted my husband and I a down payment on pur first house shortly after I married… although he could have left that money to my dad, assuming I would eventually benefit from it, or left it to me in his will, he told me he wanted the opportunity to see me enjoy it verses waiting for me to get it when he was gone. Made sense to me… and he DID enjoy several Thanksgiving dinners at my dining room table in that very house. :)</p>
<p>Yes, we are hoping to be able to help our kids acquire a home on Oahu, which will require a significant down payment so they won’t have a crushing mortgage. This will a a large part of what we plan to gift them with. Also are hoping to be able to help pay for any future grandkids’ educations, when they appear on the scene. Am not thrilled about the prospect of trust becoming irrevocable after the first in the couple dies. Will need to discuss that further with the attorney before we agree on what WE want to have done.</p>
<p>I just want to point out that not all young folks under the age of 30 are financially irresponsible. </p>
<p>I’ve known of some cases of grandparents who created irrevocable trusts for their grandchildren for the express purpose of bypassing the financially flaky/irresponsible parents in favor of their more financially sensible grandchildren so they can be sure the parents won’t end up frittering away their grandchildren’s financial inheritances on frivolous spending for themselves or wacky financial/business schemes they’re ill-equipped/too flaky to handle. </p>
<p>In short, the grandparents may be doing this to protect the grandchildren from their own child’s(dren’s) tendency towards financial irresponsibility or presumptuousness about the money meant for the grandkids.</p>
<p>Yes, not all people are equally responsible about finances. I can see how gifting grandkids with a lot of funds/resources can seriously affect family dynamics but can also see why some would prefer to do that over giving the funds to people they consider “irresponsible.” It would make things pretty awkward.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I have heard/read about folks who are in their 50s/60s with no assets, no pension, no savings and few marketable skills. Not quite sure what they are expecting and how they think they’ll manage as they get older and have shrinking opportunities.</p>
<p>I think that with a few exceptions (a disabled child who, for example) , it generally is a good idea to split an <em>estate</em> equally among children, regardless of their finances. Part of the reason for this is that no one has a crystal ball and can see into the future. The less successful child might marry a billionaire, invest in the next big thing, win the lottery. The more successful child could become ill, lose a job, lose money in a divorce or have huge reversals in business, the stock market or courtesy of a Bernie Madoff. Grandchildren often receive separate bequests, as mentioned. Provision can even be made in some cases for those not yet born. </p>
<p>That being said, if I was far better off than a sibling, and that was not likely to ever change, or there were other extenuating circumstances or a special need, I would never begrudge a parent for providing more for one child, whether in a will or while they were alive. On the other side, I would not feel entitled to anything extra if I were the one with less. </p>
<p>But the idea of the OP’s brother sitting there with a calculator for a brain yelling about the unfairness of a gift from a <em>living</em> grandfather would be completely distasteful to me - I would never buy into it. The brother and the OP WERE treated equally, protestations and any back story that may exist, notwithstanding. </p>
<p>I agree with those who say this is really about the brother resenting the fact that his father is placing a value on his grandchildren as separate people. Meanwhile, the vast majority (95%) of grandparents surveyed by the AARP gave gifts of some kind to grandchildren within the last year (4% over $1000) and 53% have contributed to their grandchild’s educational expenses in some way.</p>
<p>Even if you use the brother’s own (IMO, faulty) logic, the brother is the one who ended up with all the discretionary spending money in this scenario. The brother has no tuition bills to pay or child related expenses, or any responsibilities for anyone other than himself. Meanwhile ALL of the OP’s gift money is being spent on tuition. In fact, the grandfather has asked that it be spent that way, while the brother has no such stipulation - he can spend or save it as he wishes.</p>
<p>Interesting. My father set up modest educational trusts for each grandchild. Turned out that shortly before he (my father) died I had my only child while my older brother had two children. I never had a thought about this until this thread.</p>
<p>My father and mother treated my brother and I equally in their wills. I guess I view all of this as “equal” treatment. They loved both their children equally (hence the equality of treatment in the wills) and loved each grand child equally (hence the equal trust amount).</p>
<p>I admit that often money is poison in families.</p>
<p>Bay, I have read the thread, and, yes, I see that it isn’t always fair the way parents treat their children. It cannot be fair. Most of us don’t live life with a talley running as to how much we give each child. And when the grandchildren enter the scene, they are a whole new group of loved ones for whom we want to buy things, do things for. It’s absurd to have to set aside money for each other kid when doing somethig for one, and when the next generation enters the scene, it’s all bets off. What if grandpa decides to remarry? Where’s the fair come in with that? Each of us determine how fair we want to be. Where does one draw the line in having to get each family member an equivalent value gift? At $100, $1000, at all? </p>
<p>I think the problem is with the OP’s brother in this case.</p>
<p>The family dynamics will be very interesting when my MIL passes away and her will is read. I’ve understood that everything is to be split among the kids, however there are significant economic differences among them and different levels of involvement since she’s been in assisted living and now full nursing care. I can already see some siblings shutting out ones they don’t believe have made a significant effort to participate in decision making. Another complication is that half of the grandchildren are adopted and she has always has pointed that out. </p>
<p>Just remember there’s FUN in dysfunctional! (times like there make me grateful to be an only child!)</p>
<p>I actually do this, and it isn’t hard. I set an amount I am willing to spend on my kids’ birthday and Christmas gifts, and I spend the same amount on each one. When I can’t make it match, I write one or the other a check for the difference. Both sets of grandparents did the same for our kids. Usually they gave them $50 or $100 checks, sometimes gifts, but it was always equal among the kids.</p>
<p>But this thread isn’t about those types of holiday gifts anyway. It is about <em>significant</em> monetary gifts. Of course, grandpa can spend his money anyway he wants, no one is disputing that. The discussion is about the impact large monetary gifts have upon siblings when they are perceived to be unequal. Some people have claimed that it is no one’s business, or that siblings have no right to care and they can go s**t in their hat if they dare to care (that was a doozy), but those attitudes are naive and ignore reality.</p>
<p>Whether grandpa’s gifts of an additional $26K to OP’s “side” should amount to an issue or not for OP’s brother is the subject of this debate, and there are arguments on both sides that deserve consideration.</p>
<p>I assume that the amount given ($13K each) was due to the gift tax exemption that maxes out at that amount for 2012. For 2013, it is $14K per person. I wonder if people would feel any differently about the situation if grandpa continues to make the gifts in the maximum amount to his grandsons over the next 10 years. If he does, would that make a difference with respect to whether brother’s <em>feelings</em> are justified? I don’t know. Then we would be talking about over $300K more going to OP’s <em>side</em> than is going to brother’s <em>side,</em> and that amount would not be going solely to cover college tuition.</p>
<p>Funny, when one child does all/most of the care/visit/involvement with the older parent, often the non-participatory kids are resented or the thought that those kids deserve less surfaces.</p>
<p>But, if Grandpa wills his house to the paid caregiver, then all hell breaks loose in the family. So, the kid who thought they deserves more inheritance because they cared for pops almost never would be happy if Pops gave a special inheritance to the caregiver.</p>
<p>Subtle messages often are contained in the terms of the wills and trusts. My parents had two kids, me and my older brother. Each educational trust for the grandchild had the biological father, the other brother and the non-parent son’s wife as the co-trustees. So, the non-parents could “watch-dog” the money. </p>
<p>Well, my brother starts wanting to tap the money as soon as each of his boys graduated from high school. His pitch was that he did not have any legal obligation to provide any money towards college so it was a reimbursement of what he had paid in for college. By this time my son was 11 and my son’s mother and I were already long time divorced but had a good co-parenting relationship. She and I thought this was pretty bush league since there didn’t appear to be any financial hardship on my brother and his wife’s part. So all funds were ultimately drawn out of their trusts to reimburse provable parental contributions to pay for college, BUT both of their sons did graduate from college.</p>
<p>Fast forward and now 12 years later, my son has graduated college and his trust has not been touched since my Ex and I agreed to split the portion of college not covered by our son’s significant merits scholarships. After my son graduated from college, he (my son) and I discussed the trust (he had known of its existence but not much more). He and I decided that I would disburse all of the money to him to use/manage with the caveat that any graduate level money needs were on him.</p>
<p>To do this, I had to get my brother and his wife to sign off on it. This resulted in my son graduating college debt free and with money in the bank. My brother hinted that he’d prefer if his boys did not get wind of this. My wife, my Ex, my son and I have all honored this “request.”</p>
<p>My grandparent’s set up a situation where every kid would inherit equally. My grandfather died years ago, maybe 11? My grandmother managed to live on her own in the retirement situation they’d set up, graduated: independent to assisted to medical, for a year or so. She has had dimentia for a long time now, and recalls none of us. My uncle who is the executor, writes the checks, etc…, and bills for his time. There’s really not much left, and there really was quite a bit when my grandfather died.</p>
<p>Mother, who counted on a big inheritance is a bit adrift because of this, and my grandmother, whose general feeling was, “Take me out back and shoot me if I ever get that way,” would be miserable, if she found out this was the way it all got spent.</p>
<p>In the end, it might just be better to gift and gift and gift and set up irrevocable trusts while we are still in our right minds. I know that watching this happen with my family has led H and I to do it this way.</p>
<p>But, to me, money is money. I never cared much about it. I miss my grandmother and grandfather terribly. They were the best adults I ever had in my life, growing up, the only adults (my parents were hippies). When my grandmother went into the “home” as we call the assisted living place, the entire family crawled all over her place taking the artwork and the jewelry and shoes (she had valentinos and chanels, a museum of amazing clothing that fit nobody) </p>
<p>I was disgusted by the whole thing and took nothing. Well, I took a picture of the two of them together when he came back from the war. Very glamorous. (WWII)</p>
<p>This would be one way to handle it, but who would pay for grandma’s end of life care when she has gifted everything out?</p>
<p>My father didn’t gift anything and was an ardent saver. He spent the last 5 years of his life in a very comfortable, expensive, assisted living care home. It used up a lot of his estate, but it was the right thing to do; he was never a financial burden to anyone in the family or to the government.</p>
<p>I will leave you to judge, but my grandfather specified he be buried in a plain pine box, and my grandmother had a DNR and no extrordinary measures long before this was a standard thing, and yet, they continue to do expensive procedures on her to prolong her body. It is inhumane to do this, in my opinion.</p>
<p>So, we probably don’t want to get into that conversation.</p>
<p>All I’m saying is that the grandfather who is choosing to gift his grandchildren pre death tax, pre dimentia, well? I’m for it. </p>
<p>I don’t really share the angst expressed here on how my kids would handle inheriting from us. My kids are – if anything – more fiscally conservative than DH and me. I am often scolded by both that I spend too frivolously.</p>
Am not thrilled about the prospect of trust becoming irrevocable after the first in the couple dies. Will need to discuss that further with the attorney before we agree on what WE want to have done.</p>