My Parents Disowned My Brother After He Came Out. Do I Have to Split My Inheritance With Him?

Duh.

What a cunt to even hesitate to do the right thing.

Give Jack his share

Happened to me. My siblings kept it all.

Anyone who has to ask such a question has no intention of giving,

Spoiled baby sister

YES, you should divide the money and assets between the three of you. Please talk to your lawyer and financial adviser to make this so. Call you sibiling and tell them you love them and what to include them in all parts of this process.

Having been through something similar (not disinherited, but receiving less than expected and was entitled to), I can tell you that not rectifying this situation would be a big mistake. It's not as if the excluded one was an addict or that one or two siblings did all the work and supported the parents while the third did nothing, and even that is not black and white. Bottom line, those leaving the world do not have the right to destroy the r'ships between those they leave behind.

Also - your brother could choose to challenge the will and I can tell you from experience that nobody really wins except the lawyers. With appeals it can drag out for almost a decade, the estate is drained and everyone hates each other forever after.

No! You don't have to and it's disgusting you are being asked. Don't do it. YOU need the money.

I hope the parents rot in hell for what they did to those kids.First by disowning their Gay son and then a slap from the grave by creating a financial wedge between the siblings. What horrible people they were

That older sister sounds like a nasty piece of work too. Same controlling attitude.

While I agree that just splitting it 3 ways and giving it to Jack is one way to do this, does anyone know if Jack is even interested?

I’m in the same situation pretty much as Jack (as I posted on another thread) and I wouldn’t want my parents money nor would I expect my siblings to give it to me.

Maybe the two siblings could setup a trust fund for Jack’s child which would certainly come in handy later in life and bears a more thoughtful, voluntary, direct gesture of love to their brother and his family than the stigma of “thwarting our parents wishes because the hated you” type thing. The “they didn’t leave you anything but we’re going to redistribute their money they didn’t want you to have” leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

@r11, It seems the rotten apples didn't fall far from the tree

Man, both my parents were pretty horrible, but I thank god I have the siblings I have. We don't always agree on everything, but no way in hell would either pull this shit. We actually love and respect each other.

[quote]Happened to me. My siblings kept it all.

Please tell me you don’t speak to those fuckers anymore?

She could arrange a hit on Valerie and Jack. That's another option.

Why am I not surprised some are attacking Valerie here? She seems to be sweet and thoughtful, unlike “Undeserving”.

[quote]Please tell me you don’t speak to those fuckers anymore?

Not since 2012.

The reality is that no one is entitled to a share of a legacy or inheritance.

The parents left their money to whomever they wanted and had no obligation to distribute it in any specific proportions.

The parents are awful, spiteful people. But, the OP is not responsible for attempting to right the wrongs of the parents. The sister has no children and she and her husband both make a comfortable living. It's very easy to be generous with other people's money and insist that the OP give away some portion.

Here's the real test. If the parents had cut the brother out for being a MAGA deplorable would ANY of you DEMAND that the OP give up a portion of his money. Of course, you wouldn't. The parents can leave their money to whomever they want for whatever reasons they want. Are any of us really surprised that people would disown a kid for being gay? But, they DID disown him.

If sister feels so strongly, why doesn’t she quietly give Jack 1/3 of her share and keep her pie hole shut. But NO, she has to be the bossy sister and tell her brother what to do.

The parents sure did a number on these two.

Whilst I would split the inheritance so that each sibling got a third it is a very personal decision and you are going to have to make your own choices.

I don't envy you at all because everybody's situation is so different.

I'm an only child and will inherit my mother's estate currently worth more than $2 million dollars. However, two of my cousins are sniffing around my mother with one of them commenting as to what I'm going to do with all that money. It is so sick. I've never even thought about it. Financially I'm comfortable and really don't need my mother's estate but I don't know what makes them think they do. I am actually very annoyed but am largely treating it as a 'shrug the shoulder's type of thing. Neither of these cousins have had anything to do with my mother for over 40 years and are sniffing around now - thankfully they live in country towns to they are far enough away. My mother is not impressed by the way and doesn't want them to get a cent but you know what some people are like. I'm just shocked at what people expect. There are no legal grounds for them to make a claim but I don't want anything to do with anybody from my family on any level except my mother as there is a duty of care. She can be a real pain in the arse and frankly a bitch at times but she has also been very good to me. Even if she wrote me out of her will there would be no 'Mommie Dearest' reactions from me.

[quote] Our parents both passed away a few weeks apart in 2020

Gee, I wonder what happened?

My aunt died, leaving a will naming myself, my brother, my cousin. My cousin and I were very involved with my aunt, visiting, helping her with daily errands and such. More importantly, maintaining a relationship with her and including her in social occasions. She lived alone until she died at 91. My brother had not seen her in 4 years, called her once. He knew about her situation from me. My cousin broached the idea of changing her will, but Aunt said he was her godchild and she wanted it as it was. When she died, my cousin (whose name was on a joint savings and checking account) wanted to just empty the accounts and split with me. All of my aunt's money was in cash (about 350,000), she was renting a house. She felt my brother didn't deserve anything, I agreed. However, I insisted we probate the will and divide the money evenly. It was a struggle, but that is what was done. I felt we had to honor my aunt's wishes.

Had my aunt changed her will to just the two of us, I would not have given him a dime.

[quote]The parents are awful, spiteful people. But, the OP is not responsible for attempting to right the wrongs of the parents. The sister has no children and she and her husband both make a comfortable living. It's very easy to be generous with other people's money and insist that the OP give away some portion.

The story (which OP posted from elsewhere, it's not the OP's story) feels like an EST, but at the same time, I had a mother who played games with her will, cutting her kids from her first marriage out altogether and telling all of us kids one thing while putting something entirely different in her will. I'd planned on sharing a large retirement account of my mom's with all the kids, only to find out mom forfeited the whole thing so no one got a cent of it, except her former employer who just kept it all.

I'm on the side of the older sister here who wants to bring their brother into this and give him some of the inheritance. If they don't split it, they're causing a rift, which is exactly what their terrible parents wanted.

If the younger sister wants the money more than she wants the family, fine, but that's because she values money more than family. It's not about the older sister being "generous with someone else's money."

[quote]If the parents had cut the brother out for being a MAGA deplorable would ANY of you DEMAND that the OP give up a portion of his money. Of course, you wouldn't.

I meant to address this part of your post, too: Yes, as I said in r24 I was in a similar situation, and I absolutely would have given a fair share to my older siblings, who I barely know and who are pissed off that I even exist. They're horrible MAGAts and one at the time was a drug user and that's where all the money would have gone. It's about not letting an abusive piece of shit parent continue to be abusive from beyond the grave by playing games with money. I wasn't going to let my mother get away with it. Turns out, the old psychopath outsmarted me.

[quote]My fiancé and I, on the other hand, also just get by, and we plan to have two or three kids ourselves.

In my opinion, no couple living in this day and age should even consider bringing more than two children into the world.

[quote]If the parents had cut the brother out for being a MAGA deplorable would ANY of you DEMAND that the OP give up a portion of his money. Of course, you wouldn't.

Like it or not, the huge difference here is that it's objectively wrong from a moral standpoint to deny someone an inheritance because that person is gay (or bisexual), whereas it's objectively justifiable from a moral standpoint to deny an inheritance to a MAGA deplorable.

If the older sister is so well off, then why doesn't she make up the difference and stop bullying her sister, who is just getting by?

Why are we just glossing over the fact that writer and fiancee are just getting by but planning 2 or 3 kids? Doesn't sound like they are good with money either.

That being said-when my mother finally died she left older sister and I $10 each. She left my younger sister @2 million. Youngest sister didn't give us a dime.

[quote]Why are we just glossing over the fact that writer and fiancee are just getting by but planning 2 or 3 kids? Doesn't sound like they are good with money either.

Everyone has a different definition of "just getting by." I doubt they'd be planning on having 2 or 3 kids if they couldn't already afford it in some way.

[quote]Here's the real test. If the parents had cut the brother out for being a MAGA deplorable would ANY of you DEMAND that the OP give up a portion of his money.

You're equating being gay or bisexual with being an anti-science idiot that hates gays and people of color. You know that right? That's not a "real test."

The brother seems like a good person and at no point does the original post say they're not.

No one who says "just getting by" means to imply they can afford 2 or 3 kids.

If they were "just getting by" then they wouldn't even consider 2 or 3 kids.

I wouldn't split the inheritance because then they'd have to pay taxes twice. Better to just give him a credit card and a small cash allowance monthly. no on is entitled to heir parent's money.

My father hated me for being gay ,but he never changed his will. When he died I was astonished to get a share. Both of my brothers were astonished as well,as they assumed they would get it all. I learned then and there just what money will do to any relationship . I always got along well with both my brothers,but their behavior after dad died broke my heart . Since we arent far apart in age and all of us are getting old,Ive already made sure that everything i have will be sold and the proceeds go to my one niece (who was brought into the family at 2 so shes not "blood" kin according to them) gets the lot. Fuck them,and my selfish ass nieces and nephews who are "blood" .

My brother does of AIDS about 10 years ago. He left a huge life insurance plan and retirement.

I thought he might be include me in his will since we were both gay and he repeatedly sexually abused me when younger.

He left it all to my nieces. I never said anything but it would have been nice if had had included me as some sort of penance for what he did to me.

To even give this any thought let alone write a columnist about it shows a complete lack of character. Send this article to the disowned brother. Hopefully the brother tells the other “brother” to keep his money and shove it up his ass.

r34 in some fucked up way he probably figures that since you're also gay that it was not harmful. He could have been molested as well. Still a shit situation. Did you ever call him out on it?

My brother did the same to me. He claims to be straight. We don't mention it because it only happened 2 or 3 times. I cant forget and we are respectfully distant because of it. I don't even know if it crosses his mind, but it certainly stays front in center in mine. I think an uncle (dad's brother) or my father might have touched my brother before my parents divorce. A memory in my mind makes me think that but I don't want to unlock that pandora's box with a therapist.

My grandfather molested my aunt. Everyone knows, they use a forgive and forget mentality, complete with financial dependency with my aunt always guilting my grandfather out of money. My mom was not aware of this until after my father married her, she was appalled. My molestation remains a secrete between me and my brother.

Split it! He had enough of your parents bigotry, don’t perpetuate it by not sharing.

is some countries a parent can NOT cut his children out of inheritance.

r38 sounds like laws made up from a bunch of single children. Anyone with siblings knows how cunty they can be to their parents, especially once they are out of the house and someone has to care for mom and dad.

@r34, It's terrible what your brother did to you, I hope you take some comfort in the karma that you're still here able to enjoy life and he's not

The younger sister, who is just getting by, plans to have two or three kids. That's stupid as hell - they can't afford to have kids with or without this money.

And the stupid asshole at R19 comparing someone's sexuality to one's CHOSEN political beliefs of a MAGA - that's not the same at all. People who choose MAGA beliefs are racist, anti-science, and anti-democracy. There is nothing about the MAGA platform that is just a 'difference of opinion' - no, it's ignorant, and purposefully mean and not inclusive.

I can't believe R19 would even compare the two - but he's most likely a MAGA himself. He doesn't care about fairness or even doing what's right.

I agree with R19 that’s why I hope the disowned brother tells the other brother to shove it. Hopefully he gets that chance. But if not, he’s better off. Much better off away from that family.

So Valerie has a lot of money herself and no plans for kids? If I were Valerie and you didn't want to cut in Jack, I'd leave everything in my will to be in a trust for his kid "for reasons that are well known to my cunt sister"

Valerie probably already helps him out.

[quote] Your bigoted parents probably wanted you to sever your relationship with your brother, and you are allowing them to posthumously create a situation that might facilitate it.

Exactly. My father did this. The saddest part is that my mother had only died two years earlier. She would never in a million years have done what he did. He should have died first.

This kind of hurt lasts a lifetime and can rob you of your siblings.

It might be helpful to know how much money we're dealing with, here. As someone upthread stated, there could be huge tax implications. If the two siblings informally cut the other in, at that point it is considered a gift. Well, guess what? The gift tax is paid by the GIVER, not the recipient. This is on top of whatever estate taxes and probate fees they've already paid. Bad idea. A better strategy might be to let the brother contest the will, with the agreement that the other two siblings are in full support and will not challenge it. This should keep legal costs down and ensures that the tax burden is shared equally, as well. Again, whether this strategy is worth it would depend on what kind of money we are dealing with.

There could be a clause in the will where if contesting happens—the recipient gets zero.

If he does the right thing and gives his brother half, does the IRS consider that a taxable event?

[quote] There could be a clause in the will where if contesting happens—the recipient gets zero.

That's like saying don't do CPR cause you'll break his ribs when he's already dead.

The point of contesting it is to challenge the will by throwing out the father's alleged wishes.

Those clauses are more about trying to up your inheritance, not when you have been written out.

Valerie has a high paying job, a rich husband, and doesn't want kids. Team Val.

In the UK or a Commonwealth country, the brother could mount a will challenge on the grounds of unfairness, but not in the US unless it was based on one of these possible grounds,

'Common grounds or reasons for contesting a will include lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, insane delusion, fraud, duress, technical flaws and forgery.'

In most European countries, I think you are obliged to leave at least half your estate to your children.

[quote] Here's the real test. If the parents had cut the brother out for being a MAGA deplorable would ANY of you DEMAND that the OP give up a portion of his money. Of course, you wouldn't.

Being a MAGA deplorable is a choice for what they want to be. Are you suggesting the brother chose to be gay?

To the poster who indicated that his cousins were sniffing around as mothers in Heritance there is a solution. All she needs to do is put a provision in our well and give them each 100 pounds or $100 which ever is relevant. That way her intentions can’t be challenged.

[quote]Being a MAGA deplorable is a choice for what they want to be. Are you suggesting the brother chose to be gay?

No, I'm suggesting that the parents could have cut the guy out for any of a million reasons - none requiring that the OP share the inheritance.

A person is not owed a legacy from the parents. Whether they cut him out for being gay, a woman, a liberal, an atheist - doesn't matter. The parents can do whatever they want with their money.

So many discussions about inheritances also justify keeping money because it's what the person leaving the money wanted. If the parents had cut out the kids in favor of a random person that person would have no obligation to share the money with any of the kids. You can't have it both ways - either the person leaving the legacy gets to do what they want and the justification for keeping the money is that that's what they intended or not. You can't simply decide you dislike one person's reasons, but are fine with another person's reasons.

The reason why deplorables fail at ethics is that they cannot decide on an underlying principle beyond what's in their own best interests at the time.

[quote]No, I'm suggesting that the parents could have cut the guy out for any of a million reasons - none requiring that the OP share the inheritance.

Just from a philosophical perspective, that brings up an interesting angle. What if the other survivors don't actually know the real reason? They could be assuming one thing and the reality could be something no one even knows about. What if, for example, they bailed him out of jail or some other trouble a bunch of times? Loaned him money that he never payed back? Had an argument and he outright told the parents to disown him? Families have so many secrets.

[quote]No, I'm suggesting that the parents could have cut the guy out for any of a million reasons - none requiring that the OP share the inheritance. A person is not owed a legacy from the parents. Whether they cut him out for being gay, a woman, a liberal, an atheist - doesn't matter. The parents can do whatever they want with their money.

There is a difference between things we choose (a liberal, an atheist) and things we don't choose (gay, being born a woman). [italic]However, you are right,[/italic] they can do whatever they want with their money and they did!

However, it's no longer in their hands. So yes, it does matter in this case, because the people deciding what to do with the money now are his two siblings. They have the power to carry out their parents' wishes or to do as they feel otherwise. The parents can't protest. If they carry out their wishes as they requested, they are continuing their bigotry even in death since they know the reason why they did it.

That's why the reason matters. We know it's his parents' homophobia and not his parents and their son having ideological differences. There's no right or wrong side to being gay or bisexual. It is what it is. We know it's something his parents shouldn't have had a problem with since it's at the very core of who he and we as the gay community are.

One of the siblings isn't okay with their decision. The other one is okay with that but at least seems to realize that she shouldn't be or else she wouldn't have asked for advice. That advice columnist isn't responding to a legal question. She's responding to a moral one and she gives a great answer.

No, you don't have to share the money but if you do, you'd fix what your parents shouldn't have had a problem with, express that you don't have a problem with it AND you'd continue to have a relationship with your brother.

I'd posit, R55, that from "PayDirt's" explanation, she has a pretty good grip on her parents' views and just when and how his relationship with their parents fell apart. I appreciate what you're saying, though.

Someone looking for a rationale to be selfish and unethical.

I haven't spoken to my horrible mother whom I hate for about 13 years (she's completely mentally abusive). My three brothers have kept in contact with her and put up with her shenanigans. She will leave some money once she goes, but whether I'm still in her will or not, I won't accept it. My brothers have had to deal with her and I've bailed out, so I don't deserve any of it.

It seems she already made up her mind but just needs validation.

Not only should you give him a 3rd of your share, you should give him all of it. You should then convince Valerie that she should and MUST donate her entire inheritance to progressive advocacy groups, local homeless shelters, and AOC's re-election campaign. You should also volunteer to create fire island type parties for gay teenage youths coming out.

The annswer this simple. In a perfect world, Jack's parents would not have been homophobic. But we don't live in a perfect world, which gives moral people few opprtunities to be "perfect". Baby sister should give her third to Jack. If the parents were not homophobic they would have done the morally right thing. Its that simple. Is it the right the to do? Yes.

The answer is this simple. In a perfect world, Jack's parents would not have been homophobic. But we don't live in a perfect world, which gives moral people few opprtunities to be "perfect". Baby sister should give her third to Jack. If the parents were not homophobic they would have done the morally right thing. Its that simple. Is it the right the to do? Yes.

What would you do if you were the sole heir to a person's estate (2 houses, 3 cars, collectibles, $100,000 or so in the bank, etc.) who is terminally ill? But you were single and lived 500 mi. away, had a full-time job with no vacation to speak of and had your own household to run (lots of pets, etc.)? Would it make sense to hire a lawyer to take care of everything? I'm rather poor and unsophisticated about these things...

Yes, because there are things that must be done that aren't apparent just by listing their assets on here.

Also, you know having 2 houses, 3 cars, collectibles and 100K or so in the bank means that at some point you won't have to work as hard? You owe it to your future to give it time and get everything straight.

This has nothing to do with anybody's membership in the tedious progressive club. What a bunch of bullshit.

This is about a far more base, far more universal temptation: greed. It lingers even in the finest of us.

This cat pretends he's fretting about his credentials, when what he really wants is a pass for keeping more than his share and to hide the truth of it behind the philosophical question.

And in my view they should share with the wrongly excluded brother.

What a putrid human! I wish her a miserable life.

IMO, if the less-wealthy sister cared about her relationship with her siblings, she should give 1/3rd of her share to her brother. Then she never has to think about it again, ever. She will alienate both her brother and her sister by not doing this. Seems like brother hasn't done anything "wrong" besides being gay.

The more-wealthy / executor sister can still do what she wants to do.