As far as couple voting similar - I’ve seen it happen all around me. It’s sad to say that usually it’s the wife who follows the husband’s POV, I have never seen the other way around. Some of them even told me that they used to be X political party, now they are Y, fiercely, like a born again Christian but in this case “Christian” is political party Y.
In our GST, we had to have a provision that a certain amount go the parent. Otherwise, it didn’t qualify to be GST or something like that. This was before the law changed concerning GST. Not sure if the law change scraped the requirement.
Re access to financial information: I haven’t worked for money since before my 30 y.o. son was born and cannot imagine not having visibility and control of finances. Husband and I are screwed up in a lot of ways, but an economic power imbalance is something we’ve managed to avoid.
One of the considerations we’re wondering about incorporating in our estate planning is the disparity in pension infrastructure between us and our kids. When we think about perhaps setting aside part of our estate to preserve for kids rather than surviving spouse, it’s because husband has military, state employee, and federal employee pensions, as well as social security, plus I’ve got survivor and SS spousal benefit. Kids can’t count on all that the same way we’re able to.
No grandchildren yet, but the concerns above would play in even more, since both our sons have already accumulated savings. I guess we’d approach it from “who is most vulnerable.” And while it is our money and our decision, we’d involve everyone in the discussion to make sure (a) we don’t miss anything and (b) our [good] intentions are clear.
FIL had an estate plan drawn up just before he died emphasizing that his money was to go to his descendants, and not their spouses. Couldn’t have been more clear.
I was the only one in the family ever to read it, the executor/successor trustee ignored most of it, and all 3 spouses are the ones who controlled the money. In DH’s case, he still has it in separate accounts with the kids as beneficiaries, but that’s because I set it up that way. In the other 2 cases, well, it’s probably good that FIL can’t see it.
We can start the ball rolling, but can’t always control the path it takes.
I’d be willing to extend a little sympathy to the grandparents here.
They helped raise their grandchild- so they know him well. They bailed out their daughter- so their intentions are kind. They are savvy enough to have accumulated some wealth, and don’t want it gone in five years due to lack of planning on their daughter’s part, or just financial ignorance, or plain stupidity. They understand that you can’t control or anticipate everything from the grave- so they’ve chosen the family member with the best training to manage the trust- not a stupid move on their part.
Sure- it would be great if the daughters could buy a porsche without having to get permission from the trustee. Sure- it would be great if one daughter could lend $100K to her SO (if there is one) to bail him out of bad investments, or to recussitate a failing business. And it would be fantastic for both daughters to be able to take a long awaited cruise, buy a timeshare in Vegas, or do anyone of a number of things that people who aren’t good with money tend to do when they win the lottery, get an inheritance, win dough on a game show, etc.
I’ll give the old folks enough credit to posit that perhaps they don’t want to see the estate they’ve amassed to go to one of a thousand stupid things their daughters might want to do with a sudden fortune. And enough credit to know that their estate- while large and perhaps complicated, is not JP Morgan sized, and would not last another generation with two not-very-sophisticated heirs running the show.
Fortunately, the old folks are still alive and lucid. If a friend asked me what to do- I’d schedule a sit down for the sisters and the parents, no grandchildren present, to ask “what are your intentions here”. If they really want the bulk of the money to go to the grandkids, then hear them say that. If they think that after decades of helping two not-that-savvy adults in various ways, they don’t want either of them in the position of splitting a few million dollars-- then hear them say that.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with appointing a financially savvy adult grandchild here. I know several families where that has worked just fine. If the grandchild is a decent human being, he won’t allow his aunt or mother to become destitute or homeless (even if it means less money for him eventually), nor will he allow either of them to invest a million dollars in a pyramid scheme/ponzi investment/multi-level marketing scam.
Perhaps your friends parents are saving her from herself? And allowing the bulk of their fortune to go the grandkids- who hopefully will be prudent and frugal stewards of the dough?
^^^ I wonder if the grandparents actually want to state their reasons explicitly, if those are in fact their motives. They might not want to go into it.
@doschicos Originally my sister and I were named co-executors of our parents’ estates. But after hearing horror stories from my friends who had to deal with uncooperative siblings, and what a hassle it was to get everything signed by both, I asked my parents to take me off. Even though I’m the older, I live on the other coast so I was perfectly fine having my sister, who is local to them, be the only executor. After all, it doesn’t change what I will get, and I am happy to help her in any way that I can, so it just seemed more sensible to volunteer to be taken off that duty.
My parents named 2 of us as executors with the expectation that one of us would resign. They said they couldn’t predict what our life situation would be at the time, so left it to us to decide who would serve.
I couldn’t agree with you more, but as @deb922 and others have pointed out, I think much of it is a generational thing.
In our house, be have “pink” jobs (things I generally do/am responsible for) and “blue” jobs (things dh does and is generally responsible for) and some “purple” jobs (things we do together/shared responsibilities). Bill-paying and managing finances in our household is a “blue” job and something that my husband willingly and happily does. However, you better believe I know what we have, where it is located, how to access any of it online, etc. We sit down at least twice a year and review all household financial matters. I certainly have my own credit card. I will say that I think many people don’t even realize that credit cards are generally not “joint,” but in one person’s name only.
To my mil’s credit, she certainly never allowed fil to sway her political views AT ALL. They were polar opposites in their voting habits.
You forgot buy a motorcycle or sports car, get a tattoo and “loan” money to every friend or relative they have. 
Same.
We have a joint credit card account-same account number, but our names on our cards. We each have our own Amex cards that we got before we got married.
@Happytimes2001 is correct in stating the vast majority of credit cards are not joint, even though the authorized user has the same number. It is very difficult to find a true joint credit card these days. When applying, it is done with one name for credit purposes with a secondary card issued.
Milee- thanks for catching. As I said- there are a thousand ways (or at least a hundred) that financial planners and bankruptcy lawyers have seen for someone to blow through a big pile of money really, really quickly. And ask any private wealth manager- or investment advisor to a family office–and they can tell you that there are signficant differences in the way that Gen 1 (the elderly couple here) spends, invests, gives to charity vs. Gen 2 (the sisters). If either sister had been involved in the family business, so had helped grow the money being distributed- that’s different. If either sister had experience managing money-- on the board of a non-profit? making allocation decisions for the family portfolio? That’s different.
But perhaps Gen 1 is doing Gen 2 a favor by not throwing them into the deep end of the pool if they aren’t accustomed to making investment/tax/allocation decisions (or have been living paycheck to paycheck and have been unable to save during their adulthood).
Just something to consider. And I wouldn’t be put-off by having to ask one of my nephews for access to my own money, btw. If it were me, I’d put together an annual budget, with room for emergencies, with the understanding that if a hurricane blew done my house, nephew and I would put our heads together. If the sisters attitude now is that they’re going to ask for cash once a week- well, even more proof that the 'rents know what they are doing. In situations like this, the trustee does NOT want to be doling out cash every week. Trustee wants to see a spending schedule ahead of time to plan liquidity in the most tax efficient way possible, and to take advantage of whatever rebalancing needs to happen in the portfolio.
If OP’s friend thinks she’ll be chatting with the trustee once a week to discuss an extra $19 for the electric bill- this will be a good opportunity for her to learn how to set up a budget ahead of time. Trustee won’t be keeping the portfolio in cash!
Actually, it doesn’t make sense to have the grandson decide what the daughters get. Put it on some regular schedule and the disbursements can take place without interference. If they make bad decisions than they will fritter their share away slowly. Divide up the money so some goes to the daughters and some to the grandson. I don’t think the generational thing makes sense unless the generation you skip is already solid financially. You don’t get to morally decide without tearing the family apart. This sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Happy- of course that’s an option. The trustee can decide to do an annual or semi-annual distribution. That’s at his discretion. There is nothing to prevent the trustee from doing that. Why is this a disaster? Neither of the D’s seem to have proven that they’ve got financial smarts- the parents are protecting them. If the Trustee decides he doesn’t want to deal with drama, he can cut his mom and aunt a check once a year, or some other regular schedule. But the way the trust is set up, he is not obligated to do that if one of them gets into trouble, is about to lose their house, etc. Seems prudent to me, not sure why everyone thinks this is a recipe for disaster.
There’s no evidence that the grandson is a drug addict or a criminal out to screw his mom, is there?
It’s been interesting reading all the comments.
I don’t think the daughters would be financially irresponsible at all. I don’t envision them as being spendthrifts, but I suppose a big chunk of change without restrictions could change that.
The grandson is a perfectly capable and responsible and more financially educated person by virtue of his profession.
The parents/grandparents are good folk. These are ALL good folk. I have no doubt that the grandparents think they are doing what is best for all.
And remember, there are a total of five grandchildren. I kind of wonder how the other four siblings feel about this scenario. The grandson who is the executor/trustee is probably five or six years older than the next grandchild. He has always been the golden child.
I appreciate all the insights and personal stories. I am not in a position to change any of this, but it is interesting to know others’ views on such an arrangement.
Bottom line, whoever has the $$$ makes the rules. Things may or may not have unintended consequences. Money, especially large sums can affect folks in some unpleasant ways.
I guess you have a decision as to how involved you want to get, @Hoggirl . I can see asking for your advice if I was your friend. She isn’t terribly sophisticated in these things, and you seem to have a background that might be helpful. I think as long as you make it clear to her that you can’t tell her what to do and that your background is limited but that you would be happy to look it over and to throw thoughts out there then maybe it would be fine.
I guess my hesitation would be that people are weird about money, even in small amounts. My mom has let it be known that if my brother dies before his wife that she would get nothing in their will. That makes me queasy. She’s been a part of the family for more than 40 years, however, they never had kids, which is why I think my mom is OK in cutting her out. It bothers me that my parents wouldn’t do something for my SIL.
The big question your friend should ask is WHY? You say the relationship with her parents is good. She is not a spendthrift. She’s not addicted to drugs, gambling etc. It’s unlikely the parents are doing this for tax reasons given the huge estate tax exclusion. Then WHY?
I know if my parents had done this, I would resent it bitterly. It would be a final slap in the face. I think she should try to clear the air now rather than spend the rest of her life wondering.
Regarding #97 - my MIL said right in front of me “The money follows the blood”. This after 40 years of being her DIL, taking her to her appointments, etc. No animosity between us, but ‘the money follows the blood’. I love my son in law and after 40 years, if I live that long, I would bequeath him money if he needed it.
Speaking to the emotional side of this, as someone who’s really self-contained:
If I were the daughter, your friend in this situation, I’d shrug and acknowledge that, yes, it’s my parents’ money and their decision. But I’d also do some hard thinking and realize that my decision is how to interpret and carry their actions. My opinion of them might now incorporate that they seem judgmental of me. I’d never address it to them directly – their money, their call. But I’d do some hard thinking about what message they might be sending about me, either intentionally or unintentionally – my opinion, my call.