Is it unfair for a sibling without children to inherit less than a sibling with children?

If each descendant gets an equal part of the inheritance, in trust or in cash depending on their age, then i'd say it's fair overall.

The people it'd be unfair to would be grandchildren born after the money is shared out, or grandchildren whose parents are allowed to "handle" the children's share of the money. "But we spent it on a big house for the whole family", they'll say when the kid asks for their share. "You benefitted from it!".

[quote]Is it unfair for a sibling without children to inherit less than a sibling with children?

The short answer is "yes" it is unfair for a sibling without children to inherit less.

HOWEVER, that isn't what is happening. If his mother were dividing the estate 1/8 to your partner, 1/2 to a sibling with 3 kids, and 3/8 to a sibling with 2 kids, that would be unfair.

What his mother is doing is dividing the money among all the people who she deems as her heirs, irrespective of age or generation. Would you partner be bent out of shape if she had allocated it 1/4 to each of her kids and 1/4 to a fourth random friend of hers? If she had decided to leave 1/10 to each person and 1/10 to each of two charities, would he be bent out of shape?

Everything is "equal" in that all his mother's heirs are receiving the same amount. Now, if there are odd twists like the money for the grandkids actually is going to the sibling and the parents could spend it that's different. However, if the money is earmarked and protected for the kids to use, it's a nice gesture of grandma to leave them a little something to remember her by.

It's her money to do with as she pleases.

OP, it all sounds really petty. Get on with your lives. Your husband doesn't need to waste energy on this stuff. Money decides families too much. As R3 says...her will, her money.

OP, your husband's nieces and nephews are far more likely to get screwed by that will than your husband.

If an equal share of the money is left directly to each heir, then it's fair. But if the money is left unequally to your husband and his siblings, with the understanding that your siblings-in-law are supposed to pass the 1/8ths onto their children when they're adults, then your niiblings-in-law will never see a penny of that "inheritance". It'll be spent on the family's lifestyle, or private schools for younger siblings born after the fact, or eventually be left to the second spouse rather than the intended recipient.

Money messes with people’s heads.

Your partner’s parents raised him, paying for all his needs and, likely, some of his education.

What more does your partner feel entitled to?

I have a half sister I learned about in my 20s. She’s not getting a full share. And why not? It’s my mom’s money and she owes me nothing more.

Your partner sucks.

R6 - no, my husband's parents didn't pay for his education. His hope is that his parents spend it all and die on their last day, broke.

His complaint is the statement "all my children are treated equally".

Yeah, I'd seriously reconsider my life choices if my partner were complaining about this.

Thanks for your wisdom and counsel, R8!

I agree with your partner that everything is not equal, and saying so is ridiculous. It's his parent's money to do whatever they want with, but if they wanted to be truly fair, things would just be split in thirds between their children, with the grandchildren to get their own separate inheritance from their parents.

My mom died two years ago and left the four of us (her kids) equal share of her estate. She owned a significant amount of real estate and the four of us agreed to sell it all instead of trying to manage it all or deal with someone managing it. Last year was a great year for property sellers and we were fortunate because we sold all 8 houses in 3 months at way above asking price. Each of us were gifted from my mom (and dad) a substantial sum of money. My second oldest sister is married to a mutli-millionaire and yet she still received the exact amount of cash as all of us. This is fine with me. She is the wealthiest of all of us but I am happy for her. I’m ok with what i was gifted. We are extremely lucky that my Mom didn’t make her will so complicated by including nieces and nephews etc. This way we can decide ourselves whether our kids or others should have a share. It also helps that my parents had what they call a Living Will.

[quote] [bold]Everybody acknowledges that it is the prerogative of the parents to divide up their estate however they want. [/bold]But my husband is livid – he does not think it is equal and is getting very upset that she keeps saying it is equal.

I would return to your first point when talking to your husband. It is ABSOLUTELY her money to divide as he wants whether he likes how she did it or not. Period.

I will note both of my own parents (who are divorced) realized this problem ahead of time, and so divvied up their estates equally in four parts among their three children and their one stepchild (each of them married a second time to someone who had only one child), and left only mementos to their grandchildren. My blood siblings and I did not begrudge any of the money to our stepsiblings.

[quote] It's his parent's money to do whatever they want with, but

There is no "but."

I had a money grubbing sister who I knew was going to be trouble when it came time for inheritance

She didn't live long enough to see a dime

I got it ALL

Bwah, hahahahahahahaha!

Life isn't fair, and if your partner doesn't realize that yet he's got more to complain about regarding his mother than the fact that he considers her will unfair.

I'm sure it was for reasons well known to him.

Completely unfair.

i don't think it's fair either. The kids should get the money, not the grandchildren. I would maybe set up trusts for the grandkids and stipulate that they can only collect if they finish college or graduate school or when they turn 25yrs etc.

hey OP, when you receive the $$$, make sure you don't co-mingle the $$$. Keep this inheritance money separate from your husband. Do not put it in joint bank account. So if you ever divorce your husband, he won't be entitled to it. Inheritance is not marital property but if you co-mingle it, then your partner will be entitled to it.

Yeah, it's her money she can do with it what she wants.

But it if were me? I'd give half to both siblings, but make provisions that the grandkids get a set amount (that can't be spent by her child/their parent). If "equal" was the point.

But I also wouldn't consider grandkids equal heirs to kids. She clearly does.

Eh, at the end of the day, who cares? Bigger things to worry about.

My brother died 20 years ago. He has three adult children. My mother changed her will do that my brother’s half went to his children. But as the years went by, and these adult grandchildren never called her, came to see her, or sent her birthday cards, she went and changed her will one more time. She cut them out and explained why. The old gal has buckets of money, and they aren’t getting a penny.

I predict a lot of wailing and hand wringing when they find out.

R5 points out my only real concern. Are these adult grandchildren?

If they aren't, I'd be surprised if all of them got their share (unless the grandmother is smart and sets up trusts).

^ You might expect some lawsuits if we're talking "buckets" of money

^ for r20

OP/R9

I'm guessing you were being a bit snarky, which I can appreciate. I was too. But I was also being a smidge serious. You mentioned that you are financially comfortable, yet your husband is staying upset about his nieces and nephews getting an equal inheritance with him.

I'm not telling you to divorce him. In my experience, though, equating money with affection (and seeing a greater share of money as greater affection) is kind of a red flag? Just... I don't know... something to keep an eye on as you two get older.

Screw the grandkids.

Maybe you and your partner should consider a quicky adoption.

Every situation is different and I think the expectation that any division is going to be exactly equal is simplistic. Did all of the siblings get the same education at the same cost? Or did one become an electrician while another pursued parent-financed undergraduate and graduate degrees at private universities?

Did one live at home until they were 35, allowing them the freedom to fail at several businesses until one took off?

Maybe one child had a lot of academic or athletic success because when they were young a parent supervised homework, drove to sports practice, whatever, but then later there were more kids and a divorce and that level of attention and private lessons or whatever was not possible.

Maybe one child had a legitimate interest in and aptitude for a family business or even the business of a family friend and was able to become a huge success because of connections.

Maybe one child got scholarships due to talent, but also a lot of effort. Should they implicitly fund their siblings’ educations, or should the parents equalize it in the will?

It’s never really equal.

I have kids and I’ve been very clear with them - it’s not going to be to each according to their perceived need, but it’s not going to be completely equal either. I can understand a child without kids of their own seeing this as unfair, but the mother has more of an interest in the welfare and success of her young grandchildren than she does in her fully formed adult children.

She is probably a little apprehensive about her childless son’s reaction and that’s why she is making an effort to warn him and making the equal across heirs vs equal across kids point. It sounds to me like she means well.

Now, if this is a huge amount of money that was inherited and not earned by the mom or her spouse and mom is all of a sudden changing a long-established family assumption, then it’s a different story. And you don’t describe the family dynamics. If this is one more example of your husband and his family/spouse being treated as less than, I can understand being hurt.

Do all the other kids have the same number of children? How do they feel about it?

Agree with R2 that OP's partner is not getting "less" than Partner's 2 siblings. Technically, since the 3 are getting 1/10th of Mom's estate, they're getting the same amount.

My opinion: Mom's 3 children should get 1/3rd each. It's up to Partner's siblings to pass down an inheritance to the grandchildren. It does sort of feel like Mom is rewarding Partner's siblings for having had children.

Mom is being kind of smart in giving all her children and all her grandchildren 1/10th. I'm assuming all grandchildren are adults and that there will be no further grandchildren from Partner's generation.

I do think it would feel way different if Mom gave Partner and his siblings 1/10th each (3/10ths) and then chose out 7 charities and gave each charity 1/10th (7/10ths). That would feel more fair.

As said, it is the parent’s money and the children have no entitlement. That said, it keeps the family peace and happiness if the bequest is equal among the children, regardless of their individual circumstances. Doing otherwise can often sadly break up a family.

[quote] That said, it keeps the family peace and happiness if the bequest is equal among the children, regardless of their individual circumstances. Doing otherwise can often sadly break up a family.

IMO, that's the whole point. If you care about your children getting along with each other, then you'd split it equally amongst the children, regardless of their particular circumstance (grandchildren or not).

I don't have children, but if I did, I would consider it my failure if they didn't get along with each other.

I think we've established that the mother can dispose of her money as she sees fit but this certainly isn't equality and to claim that it is equality sounds like gaslighting.

The tradition has been an equal distribution and each child can use his inheritance to provide for his own children, if he so wishes. The way this lady is doing it, the grandchildren may benefit from her will twice.

That's why OP's husband should limit his legacies to these nieces and nephews. Maybe even give them nothing. In any event, it's his money, right?

[quote] In my experience, though, equating money with affection (and seeing a greater share of money as greater affection) is kind of a red flag?

YES.

Basically the theme of a substantial number of Victorian novels is that equating money or property with love is always a complete disaster both for the person who writes the will (if he or she hopes to control the behavior of the young both before and after death) and the person who hopes to inherit. George Eliot's Middlemarch; Dickens's Little Dorrit, Our Mutual Friend, and Bleak House; Trollope's Orley Farm; Collins's The Moonstone, even Forster's Howards End (which is written after the Victorian period but still has its sensibility)... they all make clear how disastrous wills are for all concerned when people try to equate love with a bequest.

The fact is, you have absolutely [bold]no[/bold] God-given right to your parents' money once you become an adult at age eighteen, and you never have a right to your grandparents' or uncles' or aunts' money (unless they were your legal guardians, and that too ends at age eighteen). It's never "fair" that you should inherit money as an adult--it was never ever your money, but someone else's.

My great aunt who had three children was bitter about the fact that my grandmother who had one child received half of their mother's estate.

It's fair enough, especially if the grandchildren are grown.

You say you're comfortable, so the money isn't the problem. He's getting exactly the same amount as his siblings.

If he had children, they'd get an equal amount, too, and it still wouldn't be his.

He sounds like a bitter person who is looking for a fight with his family. He needs to put this to bed and decide whether his grievance is more important than a good relationship with his family.

My brother talked our father into dividing his estate into quarters (me and my brother and my brother's two kids). It wasn't a huge estate, but still.....originally it was going to be divided in half between the two of us. It's not something I think about. C'est la vie, say the old folks, it goes to show you never can tell.

Listening to some Emmylou Harris would do him (and everybody else) some good.

I'm in a weird situation myself right now. My parents have never been really comfortable that I am gay, but I assumed we were past it for the most part. I got engaged a year ago, and will eventually marry my partner. They and my sister have no desire to meet my fiance. I have a small house and he has an apartment. We started looking at houses, but everything has gotten terribly terribly expensive here. I finally said to my partner, maybe we should build? My father and his only sister were both given plots of land to build on. He did, she didn't. When my sister was married, she was also given family land to build on. I asked my father if he would give us land to build on. They originally had over 40 acres and a nice house which my father solely inherited, his sister was cut out of the will. I have been told no, my plans are to give the grandchildren the rest of the land so they may build. The oldest grandchild is 16. I am ready to build, but nope. Can't have the gay son build on the family land. I understand it is the right of my parents to do as they wish, but it is fucking galling. If they think they will get any help or comfort from me as they age? I think we're done here.

Honey, my parents will leave everything to my straight brothers and sisters. But then I haven’t spoken to them in 12 years. And I wouldn’t give these 12 years of peace of mind for any inheritance.

I’m sorry, T37. That sucks.

Trust me, R38. I was sorta smacked in the face, but at this point, I don't want their money. A building lot of 2 acres is worth 250K here. I was told so many things growing up, but nothing was put into trust. I was told that my college would be paid for. My step grandmother decided she wouldn't pay for art school. So I worked in a factory because it made me the most amount of money and my parents did help some.. My sister's college was fully paid for. It's just such bullshit, and I will walk away from any family money. It's not worth my groveling.

R37, have you ever directly voiced your disappointment? There is something to actually saying, hey, this hurts me, and seeing if they remain entrenched,

The worst part of situations like r37 and r38 is that they ALWAYS come crawling and whine about FAMILY when they need or want something.

Contrary to what r41 says, open and honest communication with people like that doesn't yield anything - they know what they're doing and how hurtful it is. They either don't care or are intent on punishing you, so actually want it to hurt, the more, the better.

There are times when you cannot expect other people to read your mind to know you're upset. There are other times when you should not give them the satisfaction of knowing how much their actions have hurt you. This is the latter in those cases.

Having the dramatic confrontation or even telling them you're cutting them off will only serve to validate them. It's much better to slowly cut contact and ghost them so that they have nothing they can use to justify their bad behavior in order to blame you for their behavior or the decline of the relationship. Simply drift away like smoke and stop responding...and pray someone needs and kidney or liver so you can laugh and laugh and laugh when they beg you to be tested for a donor match.

R40

[quote]My step grandmother decided she wouldn't pay for art school.

Laughing my fucking ass off. Maybe being gay isn't the problem she has with you.

I can relate to many posts in this thread. I'm also dealing with estate issues right now. It's such a pain in the ass.

R37, do you know if they are cutting you out of the will? have they told you or the family how their money will be divided?

I have been very vocal about my displeasure. It does no good. I will walk away from a rather large estate knowing I have tried to work with my family for years, and I still have my dignity. I have seen how important money and power are to them, and I will not continue that cycle. Neither of us make a ton, my sister has two vacation houses because she has towed the family line. Guess what? She'll have to deal with the consequences. I no longer choose to be treated as less than. I have barely spoken to them for a year. We have one more financial situation to resolve and then I will be done. I don't need their money. Would it be nice and insulate us? Sure. But we will be fine without it.

She's dead and was the woman who introduced me to a lot of art and culture. I make a living using my degree, so it doesn't matter much, R43. No reason to denigrate someone for following their passion. I hope you enjoy your work.

No, R45. But I expect nothing. Didn't mean to derail your thread, OP! lol.

R33, your great aunt was responsible for her own brood, was greedy, and just wanted more money. One solution is just to give it all to charity then everyone will be equally pissed off. But it still seems best to give equal amounts to each. The greedy will always come up with a reason or formula giving them more.

Really blows R37. Sorry you have to deal with that.

The one good thing about coming from an Appalachian-level poor family? None of the Shakespearian, money-grubbing treachery I read about here.

We hate each other for free.

"My opinion: Mom's 3 children should get 1/3rd each. It's up to Partner's siblings to pass down an inheritance to the grandchildren. "

See R5. If the OP's mother-in-law leaves the money to her children only, that means a very good chance that the grandchildren will get nothing. The parents might spend it or loose it, or have a second clutch of children, or leave it to the second spouse they marry when older.

No, the if the OP's mother-in-law wants to make damn sure her grandchildren get an inheritance from her, the way to do it is to leave money directly to them, possibly in trust if they're very young.

I wonder if a lot of the bitchiness towards OP is because others resent that he and his spouse are comfortably off and are still in line to inherit something from the mother/-in-law.

An inheritance isn't doled out according to equality.

Who needs the money more? Who will continue to need more help than the others? It's about realism and NEED.

For parents with assets to pass on, it's fair.

This may shock you, but parents can't stand the idea of their adult children and grandchildren living paycheck to paycheck. They worry about the kid or kids who need parental help most.

They want to take care of their kids AFTER THEIR OWN DEATH. Who keeps track of every moment spent with their parents then compares it to the time which their siblings received? Some adults/kids need more time or encouragement. Some offspring needs little help because they are successful and on the road to prosperity. Some need more guidance. More patience. Some need far more financial support. Who will help them once the parents are gone? The issue isn't being fair to all, but not abandoning their most needy offspring.

How can they ignore the greater NEED? If you were a parent, you'd understand.

Inheritance and fair do not belong in the same sentence.

It is not your money.

OP I agree with R2 R3 R5

The old lady is trying to make sure her grandkids are provided for. As you said, your partner is getting exactly the same as his siblings.

He's basically saying kids should receive more than grandkids. Now if she had given her children who gave kids more money than your childless partner, that seems more unfair. As someone pointed out, they can then use that money however they want, which does wrangle a little.

Bottom line, as someone whose mother has passed, your partner is lucky to still have his mother still alive and seemingly of sound mind.

R53 you're right. My dad is leaving more money to my brother than us as he has lower earning potential and may struggle, whereas my sister and I will earn much higher salaries in years to come. My parents agreed this as they wanted to make sure we were all going to be OK. Perfectly logical and we're fine with it.

Not really a "fairness" question. It's their money so parents have every right to do with it as they want.

Nonetheless, parents who do decide to split their estate unevenly ought to realize that it'll split their family apart. It always does. So go ahead, but don't be blind to the consequences.

Give it to a cat charity and piss off all the greedy fuckers.

This is highly unusual Will/trust.

Traditionally, parents leave their children an equal percentage. No one else gets anything. This is standard, simple, does not change and prevents them from any contesting later. Spouses and grandchildren are not in the Will/trust.

If grandparents are wealthy, they start a trust for grandkids when they are still alive. Spouses do not get anything in a Will/ trust. The spouses have their own families.

It sounds like this family is not getting the best estate planning advice. Do the simple traditional route. If you have two kids, it is 50% each. Do this when you are young. Do not wait.

R59 who are you to say it's unusual? I would find it more weird if Grandma left nothing for her Grandkids

It is unfair and it stings. Take this actual scenario I was involved in. An aunt left her estate to her 3 nieces and nephews. One sibling had 2 children, the other two had none. The sibling with children was left twice as much as the other two, so 50% of the total estate, just because they have children. What stung is that one of the two without kids had spent several years looking after the aunt, taking her to hospital appointments, doing grocery shopping etc. This apparently counted for less than simply having children.

The poorer sibling should get a bigger share

This is one of the few forums for people who mostly don’t have kids. We don’t need lectures from parents about NEEDY children.

MARY.

I should stress that there are a lot of shady lawyers and estate planners out there.

You never know what is going to happen financially to your family. Keeping things traditional and simple is the best. You should encourage your adult children to have the same type of Will/trust, if they have kids.

I have heard nice families giving a little amount to their children from the inheritance they received. This was not in the Will/trust at all. This comes out of the adult children inheritance.

I think you have a shady lawyer/financial planner. You are getting bad advice.

Some interesting responses.

I guess I can add a little context: there's the recurring issue of an awful lot of attention and resources being directed to the siblings who have kids as opposed to the gay sibling with no kids and commentary like "you don't have kids, so you don't understand".

Another element too is the sense that the grandchildren are being given things that the children had to work for. My husband's mother says she'd hate for the grandchildren to have to get summer jobs when she made my husband and his siblings all work if they weren't playing a sport.

There's a lot to unpack.

Yes. To some extent. I can see giving some money to grandchildren but to bequeath assets to such an extent that it punishes a childless child that can leave a great deal of ill will among surviving children.

If the argument is that the deceased's child with children needs more money for that child, is it also taken into consideration if the deceased's child is married and will be able to benefit from their partner's inheritance and the other set of grandparents?

The wisest thing to do is to just leave all children equal amounts and a smaller amount for grandchildren, perhaps held in trusts until adulthood.

Many families are left unnecessary conflict because parents don't think through their wills. I've lived through this and it was entirely avoidable.

R66 Yes. A parent who raised you and your siblings stingy as can be, but when the grandkids came along nothing was too good for them.

IF the grandmother has left the money to each heir individually, then OP, your husband is getting exactly the same amount of money as each of his siblings. If that is so, then he has no right to complain.

And if it isn't so, then your MIL hasn't set it up correctly. Money left to her grandchildren does not belong to their parents, or it had damn well better not.

OP, is she didn't have a will, then the distribution would be as you wanted, 1/3 to each kid.

Hint: make sure she doesn't leave a wiil, or that it is "lost".

One thing I don't think anyone's asked is if this was the first conversation your husband and his mother had about the potential inheritance or if this represents a major change from how she was previously going to do things. If she had previously stated he was going to get 1/3rd, and that had been a long-established idea, and now he's getting 1/8th because of the grandchildren, I understand why he would be more upset and feel he's being penalized for not having children.

And while his mother has the right to change her mind and do what she wants, I do think it's unfair to have previously made promises regarding inheritance and then change that if there hasn't been a significant falling out or negative actions on the part of the inheritor (addiction, neglect to the relationship with family, poor financial choices, etc.) to warrant such a change.

The context provided by OP at R66 seems like very common family dynamics to me. It's pretty much the same in every family I know.

It goes without saying that parents have the right to do what they want with their money. That isn't the issue.

The issue is should they be creating conflict, hurt, animosity that can destroy the family left behind. A bad will can destroy a child's feelings and memory for a parent for the rest of their lives. That's a terrible thing to do to your child.

R73 We know, Christina, we know.

Wait. Parents actually leave their kids an inheritance when they die? As in, they actually plan to do that?

Because our dad didn't leave us anything. He decided to leave everything to his mother. Tell your husband to suck it up and be grateful he's getting anything at all OP.

[quote]The issue is should they be creating conflict, hurt, animosity that can destroy the family left behind. A bad will can destroy a child's feelings and memory for a parent for the rest of their lives. That's a terrible thing to do to your child.

Yes.

R71 - good point. My husband’s mom had always said everything would be equal between the siblings (“ I love all my children equally and I treat them the same”).

Yesterday was the first time that she did mention that the grand children will be treated the same as children.

Inheritance? What is this you speak of?

My parents are dirt poor. When they go, like Charlie Brown, I get nothing.

[quote] Because our dad didn't leave us anything. He decided to leave everything to his mother.

HIS mother, really? Instead of your mother (his wife)?

r78 My parents were never married.

R79, I think that the poster to whom you're responding was surprised that your father would intend to leave everything to *his* mother, which would be surprising because people are usually predeceased by their parents.

Personally, I think your mother-in-law, if she wants to provide for her grandchildren, should give them money that comes from your brother-in-law's share of the inheritance. I don't think your share should be decreased to provide for them.

In regard to distributing an inheritance on the basis of need. That can lead to a tricky situation and lots of family drama. When my grandmother died, her will stated that her inheritance would be distributed equally among her four children. My aunt knew this. But once my grandmother died my aunt tried to guilt trip her siblings into giving her a larger share because she was the most in need and because her children were deep in debt. What she didn't want to admit was that she was the greatest in need, not because she worked a low-paying job (she's a psychiatrist), but because she only worked 10-hours a week for more than a decade beacuse she wanted to "have experiences." As a result, she had to work until she was 70. And her children were deep in debt because they went to the most expensive possible liberal arts colleges and then proceeded not to do anything with their degrees once they graduated.

r80 Oh, I got that part. We (his children) all found it strange, as well. I was just correcting the second portion.

"In regard to distributing an inheritance on the basis of need. That can lead to a tricky situation and lots of family drama."

Especially since the child the parent sees as having the "most need", is the one generally seen by the other siblings as the worthless moocher who's been bleeding their parents dry for decades.

Well what the hell, people can do what they like with their own money, and they won't be around to hear the complaints and arguments.

Totally. Unfair. Who's to say you won't have a child in the future? In any case, it's unfair but it is his mother's prerogative. Now if she were to be offed before she makes a will....

For my gay son, OP, I leave nothing, for reasons well known to him.

Yes, it would be devastating. Peop!e go out their way to hurt their own families. It hurts and its hard to get over. How they can't see that is beyond me.

Yes, it is unfair. Maybe some jewelry or sentimental things to the grandchildren but nothing more.

OP: Do you know what caused your mother's change of heart/mind? Maybe your siblings have been discussing percentages with her? Might they see this as a potential windfall for themselves, albeit earmarked for their own children? If so, you've got an uphill battle with mom.

OP I am in the same situation. I have no children and my Mom is leaving money to use 3 kids and to the grandkids. I think she should have just left money to us 3 children, let my brothers then share their inheritance with their kids. I feel like I am getting punished because I didn't have a kid.

^^^ r89 again. I guess why it bothers me is that I am the one who lives closest to her and does things with her. My brothers show up a few times a year and act like they are heroes for doing it.

My father died over a decades ago and my mother is on her last legs. I am an only child and really don't financially need her to leave me anything. She is of course leaving me everything which has always been the intention of my father and mother.

For some reason cousins on both sides of the family who we have had nothing to do with for decades have voiced their views that my mother should leave them something.

Neither she or I see why, but when it comes to estates people have some stranger ideas of entitlement.

I'm going to step this back from emotions, needs, wants, fairness, guilt, sexual orientation, and simply address biological imperatives Humans are no longer deeply in touch with instinct, so we try to rationalize behaviors as though they are all thought out, but in reality, biology does still play a very important role. When people are in the business of procreation, which most gay people are not, they are already thinking about their GENETIC legacy. Gay children are a dead end, biologically speaking. While all of us here will surely agree that that's because we are more highly evolved and in fact are the culmination of evolution, not everyone sees it that way. It's one of the reasons why even very supportive parents cry a little when their children come out to them - they are saying goodbye to that chance for another grandchild.

Just as animals choose their mates on the basis of biological fitness (faster, stronger, more cunning), the ultimate goal of that choice is to try to insure that their offspring will have a better chance of survival. and all the nurturing that is lavished on offspring is solely for the purpose of trying to make sure that they in turn will be able to procreate and pass along those all-important genes to yet another generation. So I'm actually on Team "give an equal share to the grandchildren", purely on a biological basis. It's grossly unfair in regard to equality, as all siblings should share equally if fairness were the only part of the equation, with the grandchildren being given part of their parents' share. But in regard to the success of the family line and the continuity of the genetic legacy of the family, all of that resides with the grandchildren. I suspect that that is behind the decision of OP's husband's mother, whether or not she has actually thought of it in those terms. I wouldn't take it personally - I would just be grateful to be included in the will at all. And I say this as a person who took care of his disabled mother for 20 years with only a minimum of support from his siblings. She intended to leave me a little extra out of her very modest estate, but since she's still living at 100 and needs a lot of expensive help now, she'll have burned up all of that by the time of her death - and that's fine.

I think it's a defect of our current system of inheritance that leads people to make a lot of financial decisions and so forth based upon expectations of what they feel they deserve to get out of a parent's estate. Some of the founders of our country felt that unless strong steps were taken to tax away the majority of estates, particularly of very wealthy people, over time, money would be concentrated in the hands of a very few and would undermine the democratic system they were trying to build - and in fact, that is exactly what has happened.

Very interesting post, R92. It puts into words my own feelings on the matter, particularly as I intend to disclaim a parcel of land so that it can go to my sister's offspring and remain in the family in future generations.

Eyeroll.

Just get on with your lives. Waiting for handouts and inheritances is tacky AF. Make your own coin.

[quote] For some reason cousins on both sides of the family who we have had nothing to do with for decades have voiced their views that my mother should leave them something.

People have a "sliding scale" mentality when it comes to money, except if they're on the wrong end of the scale.

I'm single, no children. A friend (met during college) has kids. When we get together, I always seem to bear more of the financial cost of the get-together. I've finally drawn the line on that friendship.

Reading this makes me glad I'm an only child. I'll inherit the burden of dealing with my parents' reverse mortgage, tons of furniture I don't want, and (if it should outlive my mother) a highly neurotic cat that definitely won't get along with my own pets, but no relatives are going to be fighting me for a share of any of that.

R76/OP

That does change things. Sounds like your husband should have a good conversation with his mother on this. Not confrontational, just to understand her reasoning. As a few people have mentioned, there are some bad estate planners out there. But it could also be the case (among many other possibilities) that there are dynamics between your husband's siblings and your nieces and nephews that his mother wants to address financially (obligatory "for reasons well-known to them").

One of my aunts was profoundly disabled from childhood, and she passed away young, but her parents died before her. As a child, they had to spend more time with her, and they left her more of an inheritance to address her round-the-clock medical care, since her siblings all stated that they wouldn't help her after the parents passed. My aunts and uncles still bitched and moaned after my grandmother's death about being left less, despite all of them being professionals in their 40's/50's who were quite comfortable financially. I don't discount that there was probably some injury from having been relatively ignored in favor of their sister growing up, but therapy was always an option. Sometimes, family just sucks.

No one is entitled to an inheritance, it is their money and they can distribute how ever unfairly they want.

I agree with all who say it should be divided equally between the children, and that grandchildren should be left out. As R81 and R83 so eloquently said, doing otherwise only leads to drama and animosity. In fact, in many states, such as California, the estate of a person who dies without a will (where a spouse is also dead) is divided equally among the children period, not the grandchildren (unless their own parent is also dead, in which case they would divide the share their own parent would have received).

In fact, parents making out a will should even try to divide the executor responsibilities out equitably. In my own family’s case, my sister has let the idea that she’s executor go to her head completely and has become a complete tyrant over the other three siblings. This while my mother is still very much alive. Parents, be careful.

What happens if only one out of three children is responsible for all of their caregiving? Should the estate be divided three equal ways when only one is doing all the elder care duty?

Never assume you’re entitled to anything. That works best.

What’s unfair is someone kvetching about not getting something that wasn’t theirs to begin with. Be grateful you got anything. You sound like a miserable person OP

Anyone remember the Midsomer Murders episode where the old Lord promised his fortune to various people, having them run round doing everything for him then - turns out he'd left them all not a bean!