Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now I really side with OP. If the grandchildren are 10 or under essentially the grandmother left a much larger chunk of inheritance to one family than the other. Unless stipulated as an educational trust those children's inheritances really benefit the parents as they can use it now as they see fit. Essentially the daughter who got the much bigger inheritance is benefitting from her choice of having a larger family.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coloradomom22
Now I really side with OP. If the grandchildren are 10 or under essentially the grandmother left a much larger chunk of inheritance to one family than the other. Unless stipulated as an educational trust those children's inheritances really benefit the parents as they can use it now as they see fit. Essentially the daughter who got the much bigger inheritance is benefitting from her choice of having a larger family.
I don't actually think you can take your children's inheritances and put them in the general slush fund for running household expenses, although I'm not sure.
I would think there would be some sort of stipulation on how to disperse the funds to the children, and when. As in, when they reach the age of 18.
Here is a link that's sort of helpful, although it assumes the parents are deceased. It still says the court, not the guardians, decides when the child can receive their inheritance, which is usually at 18.
Now I really side with OP. If the grandchildren are 10 or under essentially the grandmother left a much larger chunk of inheritance to one family than the other. Unless stipulated as an educational trust those children's inheritances really benefit the parents as they can use it now as they see fit.
Not legally, they can't. (Which isn't so say that some parents won't.) And if they do, their grown child can successfully sue them in civil court for return of his money.
Money left to a child legally belongs to that child, not the child's parents. The child may need the money to be managed by a guardian until he or she comes of age, but it is still legally that child's money.
Not legally, they can't. (Which isn't so say that some parents won't.) And if they do, their grown child can successfully sue them in civil court for return of his money.
Money left to a child legally belongs to that child, not the child's parents. The child may need the money to be managed by a guardian until he or she comes of age, but it is still legally that child's money.
No luck is needed, merely a copy of the will (or reliable testamoney from relatives about the will's provisions), proof that now-adult child never received the funds due, and the gumption to sue one's parents.
Are you saying you were able to put your child's inheritance into your own adult bank account and are free to spend it as you wish?
The OP's whole claim of "unfairness" is based on that assumption. Otherwise it's hard to find a basis to complain, since each daughter received the same amount of money.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel
The OP's whole claim of "unfairness" is based on that assumption. Otherwise it's hard to find a basis to complain, since each daughter received the same amount of money.
Right. I'm just curious if he's actually received the money, and if he was able to deposit it in to the same account he and his wife use to pay household bills.
Because that's not my understanding about how inheritances work. They are individual, and especially in the case of inheritances to children, adults can't just steal them and pool them together for their own needs.
If the grandchildren are 10 or under essentially the grandmother left a much larger chunk of inheritance to one family than the other.
The age of the children is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lottamoxie
If granny has passed then you'll need to negotiate with your sibling (or I suppose get an attorney).
An attorney is of no value here, since nothing can be done legally.
Both children received an equal share, and no judge would see it any other way.
If the Will had stipulated that one daughter receive more than the other, the only possible legal challenge would be "undue influence." You have to prove with a preponderance of the evidence (not reasonable doubt) that the other exercised undue influence and had a hand in crafting the Will.
To do that, you'd need 80-100 hours or more of video-taped depositions. You'll pay the attorney's fee, the paralegal's fee, the stenographer's fee ($45-$75/hour in Cincinnati, but $125/hour or more in major cities), and then a flat rate for video services, usually 4, 6 or 8 hours (4 hour minimum) starting at $1,200 per 4 hour session and going up from there (again you'll pay more in major cities).
The attorney will depose both daughters, their spouses, the grandmother's attorney, any doctors treating the grandmother for any condition, other family members, and friends and neighbors of the grandmother.
So, you'd be looking at $17,000 to $25,000 up front, before you even go to trial, and after reviewing the depositions, the attorney might tell you that you don't have enough evidence.
The only other possible exception is if a child is unintentionally or inadvertently omitted in a Will. That usually only happens with a younger parent, who makes a Will, then has another child and then dies without updating the Will. Courts will award that child with a share of the estate.
There are no laws regarding grandchildren, or any other family members like cousins, nieces or nephews.
There's an exception, and that is when a parent named in the Will dies before the decedent, the grandchildren can claim their parents share as stipulated in the Will, and then the grandchildren have to divide that share among themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
If the will were 5 years old, and the estate had been divided evenly among all heirs as this one was, BUT, in the last 3 months a new grandchild was born, you'd have a very good shot at making the case that Granny intended to leave an equal portion to that heir also.
I don't think so. Grandchildren have no legal claim, except when their parent dies before the decedent, and their parent is named as a beneficiary in the Will, or if the decedent dies intestate, then the grandchildren are entitled to their dead parent's share by law.
That assumes the decedent died intestate with no surviving spouse. In many States the surviving spouse gets 100% of the estate, while in a few, the surviving spouse gets 50% and the children split the rest.
If there are children from other spouses, or out-of-wedlock relationships, it gets even more complicated
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
