Don't leave it to the kids or hire a third party executor that gets a flat rate is what I'm starting to notice. Lots of third party executors are getting like $180-300K a year to deal with this stuff.... yet every single one I've ever met says that it's not worth the money and they wish they had not agreed to deal with that type of BS.
My grandfather's executor was his longtime lawyer. Worth every penny the estate is paying him to settle the will.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to vegasbound For This Useful Post:
I'm of the opinion that you always respect the wishes of the will. That's what they are for. You don't go off script after the fact.
Why?
I see the will as the means of legally distributing the assets and nothing more. If the guy who wrote the will was an idiot why should that idiocy extend past his death. If the beneficiary wants to correct what they perceive as errors then they should correct them.
The idea that the dead should control the living doesn’t seem productive.
I see the will as the means of legally distributing the assets and nothing more. If the guy who wrote the will was an idiot why should that idiocy extend past his death. If the beneficiary wants to correct what they perceive as errors then they should correct them.
The idea that the dead should control the living doesn’t seem productive.
Why would you expect the beneficiaries to be any wiser than the deceased? A will might say to distribute the estate equally between three survivors, but you’d let the executor override that if he felt two were irresponsible and would just squander it?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Why would you expect the beneficiaries to be any wiser than the deceased? A will might say to distribute the estate equally between three survivors, but you’d let the executor override that if he felt two were irresponsible and would just squander it?
He didn’t say the executor could or should override it. The beneficiaries can do what they please once the assets are distributed.
The idea that the dead should control the living doesn’t seem productive.
Because it was their money/assets. They could have spent it all on crack and blow, but chose to leave it instead to someone who they cared about. Respect for private property is a foundation of a civilised society. Start taking it away at will and how much better than the inquisition it becomes?
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
He didn’t say the executor could or should override it. The beneficiaries can do what they please once the assets are distributed.
GGG said the will should be ignored by the beneficiaries if they disagree with it. But the will determines who the executor and beneficiaries are. So I guess I’m not clear on who GGG thinks should be distributing the assets if the will is ignored.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Why would you expect the beneficiaries to be any wiser than the deceased? A will might say to distribute the estate equally between three survivors, but you’d let the executor override that if he felt two were irresponsible and would just squander it?
Maybe I misunderstood the post when it said “respect the wishes of the will”
But I thought is was in reference to the OP situation where the OP gets everything and then saying the OP should follow the will as written and keep everything because that’s what the will said.
My response was that while the legal process should carry out. No burden should be placed on the living to follow that beyond the initial legal dispersement. If he thinks the money should have been shared then share it. Just because a will states there isn’t any legal requirement to share doesn’t mean there is any moral requirement not to share.
So no I wouldn’t want the executer to override it however the individuals should not feel bound to anything once the estate is settled.
As to why they are wiser? Not wiser, just impacted. They have yo live with the consequences of the disbursement and the chaos that may have been caused.
Last edited by GGG; 08-02-2022 at 03:19 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
So no I wouldn’t want the executer to override it however the individuals should not feel bound to anything once the estate is settled.
But this is what this whole thread boils down to. It’s not a question if what thou shalt, but what thou should. Nobody has questioned OP’s legal right to inherit what was bequeathed to him(neither did he). But after that money becomes his legally, he also has the right (and perhaps a moral obligation) to do what’s right. And what’s right seems to be a concern to him, right?
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
As to why they are wiser? Not wiser, just impacted. They have yo live with the consequences of the disbursement and the chaos that may have been caused.
More impacted cuts both ways. As those involved with adjudicating inheritances have remarked, self-interest and interpersonal acrimony will often become inflamed when the property is being disbursed.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Why would you expect the beneficiaries to be any wiser than the deceased? A will might say to distribute the estate equally between three survivors, but you’d let the executor override that if he felt two were irresponsible and would just squander it?
I dont think he's saying the OP in his role as executor should override the wishes of his dad. But once the OP as beneficiary has the money he can do with it as he wishes.
I doubt the will says, "all my property to X to be done with as he wishes with the stipulation that he not give any to his sister."
Once the OP has the money he can do what he likes with it: waste it one of a thousand ways, donate it to charity and brag online about it, put it in a RRSP, give a portion to his sister, etc.
Why wouldn’t you want to give half of the money to your sister? Would being estranged and despised by not giving her a half be worth keeping that half? You said it’s not a huge amount and you didn’t expect it. It was her dad too regardless of anything else. Give it to her and keep the family ties strong. Ignore all the “it’s your money!” crap. You didn’t earn this money. It just came your way. This is the best advice you are gonna get. Don’t even think about keeping it all to yourself. Tell her that you will share and enjoy peace in the family.
I tend to agree with you, but I would probably preface that with - give her an amount you are comfortable with and explain why this is the amount. It is not up to the mother to dictate terms of the arrangement in any way, shape or form. If the surviving parent is also elderly, it may be wise to keep some of this money to help with care expenses should they be needed in the coming years.
If the remaining sum is not much, I would simply offer to take the family on a trip and avoid cutting cheques for specific amounts of money. You are not obligated to simply give 50% to someone because "it's the right thing to do". You get to decide what's right when you are left the money, and for me it would be the above.
People are really awful when it comes to money that isn't their own. It sucks that this often comes to the forefront when someone passes. I would like to think that I would be very diplomatic if a family member left or didn't leave inheritance to me over someone else, but until you're in the situation, it's pretty hard to predict when it involves so much emotion and pride.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
Last edited by Hot_Flatus; 08-03-2022 at 09:06 AM.
I had a similar situation 10+ years ago when my parents divorced. it was contentious, and my parents had a lot of animosity to each other. My mom and her family especially to my dad. They split things however they did, I didn't care, but my mom tried to insist that the money my dad used to buy his new house was mine and my sisters. The house was put into mine and my sister's name. When we sold, my mom tried to insist it was ours, but I flipped it around and gave it to my dad, as he had nothing at the time.
My relationship with my mom soured for years after. My thoughts were, was never my money to start, so it was never mine to keep. Time healed all wounds eventually, but it was a strenuous few years after my mom found out I didn't keep "my" half.
What I'm trying to say, is similar to a few other posters here. Your dad left you the money. Full stop. You have the right to do whatever you want with it. Whatever you choose, won't fix underlying problems and issues there seem to be, and is bound to make someone unhappy, regardless of intention. So do what makes you happy, and time will either heal all wounds, or whatever you do with it, will show you your family's true colors. An event like this, also allows you establish boundaries with your family too, which is never a bad thing.
As noted too, if you are married, this decision isn't just yours. You should consult with your wife on what's best for you and her and kids if you have any.
My grandfather's executor was his longtime lawyer. Worth every penny the estate is paying him to settle the will.
Sorry, when I said third party executors, I meant an executor that wasn't either an accountant or lawyer. Lots of family friends and other individuals who are perhaps just not truly as equipped to deal with this stuff like an accountant or lawyer.
You're right though, someone who knows how to deal with this stuff without getting stressed out and knows how to keep the process moving along like a lawyer/accountant would be a good executor.
I see the will as the means of legally distributing the assets and nothing more. If the guy who wrote the will was an idiot why should that idiocy extend past his death. If the beneficiary wants to correct what they perceive as errors then they should correct them.
The idea that the dead should control the living doesn’t seem productive.
The idea that the living have any say in how a person assets are divided is bullsh&t. They aren't controlling the living., They are still free to live their life the way they di before. Whether the guy was an idiot (subjective) or not, its still was his assets to distribute as he wanted.
Perceived errors? Who decides that? The vulture that looking to gain the most I guess.
I've been the executor on 3 wills so far. I don't like the job but the reason why I was selected was that the person had trust in me to make sure their wishes for their assets was taken care of. Who are you or anybody else qualified or justified to say otherwise!
The idea that the living have any say in how a person assets are divided is bullsh&t. They aren't controlling the living., They are still free to live their life the way they di before. Whether the guy was an idiot (subjective) or not, its still was his assets to distribute as he wanted.
Perceived errors? Who decides that? The vulture that looking to gain the most I guess.
I've been the executor on 3 wills so far. I don't like the job but the reason why I was selected was that the person had trust in me to make sure their wishes for their assets was taken care of. Who are you or anybody else qualified or justified to say otherwise!
He said the beneficiary can correct any perceived errors. Not the executor.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
