Of course, one could always do what this gentleman did a century ago –
Re: #80 and http://www.today.com/id/43098220/ns/today-today_news/t/after-years-millionaire-misers-heirs-finally-split-m/
Seems like if one did not want to leave any (or that much) to family members, one could just designate a charity or some such as the beneficiary of the bulk of the assets. Or donate to charity while alive.
Getting to the topic of these forums, some of the wealthiest of the “robber barons” used their money to found or substantially fund universities that now bear their names.
Man, I need to proofread my posts! I don’t even know what I meant to type!
My stepdad was married to my mom for 45 years (until her death). He always treated me and my two brothers the same as his and my mom’s two children. No favoritism ever that I was aware of. He commented to me about wanting to leave us all something when he goes. He won’t have a large estate, and my two half sibs have struggled quite a bit financially. I told him to please give my share to them, since I didn’t need it. And I meant it. If he does do that, I won’t have a problem with it. Then again, I did encourage him to do it vs. him just leaving me out without explanation. Not that I was owed anything, or that he would be obligated to explain. But with such a long history, if I were excluded, it would be more of a hurt feeling thing vs. anything to do with money.
My Dad will probably leave the bulk of his estate to my stepmom (married for 49 years now), since she has serious medical problems. I imagine he will leave a little to all of his kids, and I don’t think he would be receptive to me telling him to give my portion to another sibling.
I’m glad your stepdad talked about it with you. I have heard sad stories about blended families where nobody talked and everybody just assumed.
I have seen blended families with some unpleasant complications. There was one we saw in our office, Mom had multiple kids from prior marriage, all disowned due to her disapproval. She married Dad, he had a kid from a prior marriage, very young, raised by that new couple as the acting Mom & Dad, little connection with bio Mom.
That kid grew up thinking of the three of them as a family, the step-siblings had very little to do with the new happy family, Until 20 years later, when prodigal son/daughter happenings made everything “equal,” you can imagine how that went with the kid who had been raised to think of those kids as bad people.
Family dynamics are a weird thing, I agree with the other posters, riches can come & go, bad things happen to good people, some people struggle because they make bad decisions, unless there is a special needs kid, I would divide things equally. As to the step-siblings thing, I don’t know what is fair & right in those situations, that has to be very case by case, which parent had assets, do you care if the step or half sibling other parent provides them more or less inheritance, how long is the marriage, how do you provide for the spouse and not cut out the kids, etc.
I just had my new will drawn up this week after my wife passed away in January. One child gets the house and the other one gets what money is remaining. It is fair now but who knows if it will be in ten or twenty years.
Sorry about your wife. Does your kid want the house? I know mine won’t be interested in the house.
Also, depending on the physical condition of the house and how much maintenance/repair work will be needed, it could be a huge burden to get the house. Perhaps consider gifting all assets to both kids and let them figure out how to split assets up.
Sorry, Tonyk.
Can the one who would get the house afford it? And if the idea is that child would sell it, can they? Sometimes, there’s something about the economy, home market or the competition that leads to it being more difficult than thought.
What I’ve heard and tried a bit of (and it worked, so far,) is you ask the kids if there’s something of particular value to them, then earmark it. Luckily, mine each want different pieces of the china, crystal, and silver, one or two different antiques. The rest will be pooled and they can dispose of it, if I haven’t.
Houses can go up or down in value, so what was an even division, could end up no longer being even.
For the stuff (art, furniture, dishes) my brothers and I spent a day dividing it up. We took lots for who would go first and did things in groups. All the paintings. All the African sculpture. The dishes. It went pretty smoothly.
When a relative died, there were 3 pieces of property involved. One in CA, two in HI. The survivors opted to have the CA resident take sole title of the CA property and the HI resident take sole title of one HI property and they share title on the other. It was what both wanted and it worked out fine. The deceased left her entire estate to be shout between the 2 survivors and everyone decided this way made the most sense for the parties.
Real estate is pretty illiquid and can really vary in value. We don’t plan to give one of our kids real estate and the other cash.
My in-laws have put all their property into a revocable trust, the contents of which are to be divided equally among the four children. I don’t think this is ideal for the house. Presumably, all four will need to sign to convey title if the house is sold, and one uncooperative child would be enough to gum up the process. Also, I think it’s possible that one or more of the children won’t cooperate with paying property taxes.
Now that I think about it, I could see it if the house were a nifty waterside cottage and that child could afford it. Maybe he doesn’t want to sell it.
Technically, should anything happen to my parents (God forbid), I’m getting more than my siblings. There are three of us, so the estate is divided 34/33/33. Obviously I don’t actually care but I had a little chuckle when I came across it.
@PrivateConundrum , my mom says, “if I die, not when I die.”
FIL divided his IRA 34/33/33, but the one that got 34 was the executor and has to deal with all the administrativia. He’ll earn it.
I find it interesting to read how many of you generously feel it’s ok to let a less well off sibling have the family home.
How about if the sibling is less well off due to their own decisions. Ex: one sibling chooses to go to law school and work 80 hours/ week to make partner and the other chooses to drop out of college and perform part time at birthday parties as a magician? (Real life scenario).
The lawyer is wealthier than the magician and owns a home but is also full pay for their kids in college while other sib was given grants for their kids. If lawyer needs hired caregivers at some point, their money saved might run out and they could use funds from the parents house.
Why does well off sibling get less because they made different choices?
I have a similar situation. One child has no college debt but doesn’t earn much. Another child has major professional school debt but will likely earn a lot more over time. Do I give the child with debt more to pay off the debt?
And the magician makes it a point to say they are the ‘working poor’ being taken advantage of by ‘the man’, like their sibling, who sold out to corporate America. There are consequences to our choices.