There are few parts of the law quite as fraught as succession. As the great wealth transfer gets under way, wrangling about who gets what is tearing families apart
Tricky stuff. Talk to your family about this stuff before you/they die.
I feel like if you have a sibling like the one in the article no amount of planning is going to prevent this situation. Some people are just more greedy and selfish at a base level. Like what kind of person is left an entire house and thinks “yeah, I deserve all of this and my siblings deserve nothing”?
"Like what kind of person is left an entire house and thinks “yeah, I deserve all of this and my siblings deserve nothing”
The person that was there taking care of the parents, getting them to doctor appointments and taking time off work to provide for them while everyone else was absent physically and/or financially. Nobody else cared when they were alive, they dont get to care now that they are dead.
The person that was there taking care of the parents, getting them to doctor appointments and taking time off work to provide for them while everyone else was absent physically and/or financially. Nobody else cared when they were alive, they dont get to care now that they are dead.
What ? that’s bullshit, you’re not an employee on a deferred share scheme. If you don’t want to do the looking after, don’t.
That’s exactly the type of selfish and greedy attitude I’m referring to. You’re not owed anything for being a “good child”, you don’t earn an inheritance like it’s some kind of delayed job bonus. The parent brought all of you into the world without your permission, they should leave an equal amount to all upon leaving it. If people have an issue with that then it says a lot more about their ego and inflated self-worth than anything else.
Ignoring the morality of it, from a purely economical and financial perspective the cost of elder care for a couple is very expensive, usually averaging around the price of a home, or most of the inheritance. It’s basically liquidate the house now to send them to a nursing home, or ask a family member and “pay” them later with the house.
Hence the typical silent agreements that the sibling who looked after the parents before death gets the majority of the inheritance.
Silent, verbal, or even legal agreements are messy though. Talk to family members with the help of a lawyer.
If siblings are willing to come to that agreement between themselves then I think that’s fair enough. I just don’t think there should ever be default expectations about who gets more or who was the best child. That kind of thinking demonstrates underlying personality and relationship issues.
Which one has the greedy attitude if the parents decide “only one of our children gives a shit about me, the rest suck” and chooses to leave it to one child?
Are the greedy ones the other children who say “screw that, show me the money”?
Or is the greedy one the child that says “I sacrificed economically and personally to do unpaid domestic labour, now I’m getting paid back for my kindness”?
Definitely the latter. Thinking you’re getting “paid” is such a bizarre way to approach inheritance, it actually suggests you didn’t care about your parents at all. In any case, the other siblings shouldn’t have to say “show me the money” because the sibling with an unequal share of the inheritance should immediately be willing to share it regardless of what it said in the will. Keeping everything for yourself because “mummy and daddy said it’s only for me” is the way a child’s brain operates.
I have one sibling and as far as she’s concerned the world owes her. “Owes her what?” You may ask? Everything. I’m not looking forward to the inheritance dispute that’s inevitable when my parents pass.
I’ve had that discussion with my mother (father passed many years ago) precisely for that reason. She said we each get 1/3, which, surprised me as I’d assumed she’d leave whatever was left to her 2 grandkids (brothers kids)
I feel like if you have a sibling like the one in the article no amount of planning is going to prevent this situation. Some people are just more greedy and selfish at a base level. Like what kind of person is left an entire house and thinks “yeah, I deserve all of this and my siblings deserve nothing”?
"Like what kind of person is left an entire house and thinks “yeah, I deserve all of this and my siblings deserve nothing”
The person that was there taking care of the parents, getting them to doctor appointments and taking time off work to provide for them while everyone else was absent physically and/or financially. Nobody else cared when they were alive, they dont get to care now that they are dead.
What ? that’s bullshit, you’re not an employee on a deferred share scheme. If you don’t want to do the looking after, don’t.
That’s exactly the type of selfish and greedy attitude I’m referring to. You’re not owed anything for being a “good child”, you don’t earn an inheritance like it’s some kind of delayed job bonus. The parent brought all of you into the world without your permission, they should leave an equal amount to all upon leaving it. If people have an issue with that then it says a lot more about their ego and inflated self-worth than anything else.
The one being selfish and greedy is the one saying they DESERVE inheritance simply for being born, even if they were a piece of shit to their parents.
You don’t deserve anything as an inheritance. You’re LUCKY if you get something. You’re owed nothing. People like you deserve nothing.
Ignoring the morality of it, from a purely economical and financial perspective the cost of elder care for a couple is very expensive, usually averaging around the price of a home, or most of the inheritance. It’s basically liquidate the house now to send them to a nursing home, or ask a family member and “pay” them later with the house.
Hence the typical silent agreements that the sibling who looked after the parents before death gets the majority of the inheritance.
Silent, verbal, or even legal agreements are messy though. Talk to family members with the help of a lawyer.
If siblings are willing to come to that agreement between themselves then I think that’s fair enough. I just don’t think there should ever be default expectations about who gets more or who was the best child. That kind of thinking demonstrates underlying personality and relationship issues.
Which one has the greedy attitude if the parents decide “only one of our children gives a shit about me, the rest suck” and chooses to leave it to one child?
Are the greedy ones the other children who say “screw that, show me the money”?
Or is the greedy one the child that says “I sacrificed economically and personally to do unpaid domestic labour, now I’m getting paid back for my kindness”?
That latter is a dishonest shithead for sure.
Definitely the latter. Thinking you’re getting “paid” is such a bizarre way to approach inheritance, it actually suggests you didn’t care about your parents at all. In any case, the other siblings shouldn’t have to say “show me the money” because the sibling with an unequal share of the inheritance should immediately be willing to share it regardless of what it said in the will. Keeping everything for yourself because “mummy and daddy said it’s only for me” is the way a child’s brain operates.
Respecting your parents wishes in death is the adult thing to do. Thinking you deserve an inheritance is the childish thing to do.
I have one sibling and as far as she’s concerned the world owes her. “Owes her what?” You may ask? Everything. I’m not looking forward to the inheritance dispute that’s inevitable when my parents pass.
This is what wills are for. Get your parents to make one that’s iron clad so all she’d be doing is wasting her own money disputing it.
I’ve had that discussion with my mother (father passed many years ago) precisely for that reason. She said we each get 1/3, which, surprised me as I’d assumed she’d leave whatever was left to her 2 grandkids (brothers kids)