Should children be entitled to a share of their parents' estate?

24

Comments

  • Kyle_TKyle_T Posts: 1,001
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No, they shouldn't be entitled to anything. I used to work for and am still friends with a lovely couple who worked hard, invested wisely and are now millionaires. Their son is a nasty, entitled little brat who took up with a poisonous, gold digging bitch and they make his parents lives a misery. They even stopped them seeing their own grandchild. Why should they even get a penny?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So the current generations sense of entitlement extends to everything they can get off their parents whilst they're alive and also beyond.
    Dare Devil wrote: »
    I'm in my early 20's and don't have this sense of entitlement, never have, never will. Everything I have, either I've bought or it was a gift(s) off my mother after going through 18 months to two years of hell. If I want something, I never go to my mum (or anyone), I always save for it, then buy it, hence why my broken laptop is still broken.

    Not everyone has a sense of entitlement, it's actually very few.

    I would agree with this, I'm 28 and don't have a sense of entitlement, I have had problems in the past with money and my parents have helped me out but I have always said that I will make that up to them once I am sorted and settled myself.

    As far as their will goes, they have both worked damn hard all their lives to get what they have, they finish paying their mortgage this year and have decent pensions for when they retire in about 5 years time. I have said to both my mum and my dad, if they wanted to sell their house and go and live on a cruise ship and spend all the money that would be entirely their perogative. My mum's response was 'I will, don't you worry' my dad's was 'no, we wouldn't do that to you lot' :) Ironic, seeing as my dad is the one who is worse with his money. :)
  • Chasing ShadowsChasing Shadows Posts: 3,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    I disagree. Once you have a child, you have an unconditional duty to provide for that child. Baring very exceptional circumstances (e.g. the abuse of the parent/s by the child), parents who cut their children out of their wills are revolting.

    Sounds like your parents have discovered the truth about you, the same way that most DS Forum members discovered a while ago when you started posting your fanciful made-up misogynistic crap.

    If they want to leave their money and house to anybody other than you, surely they are to be congratulated, not called revolting?
  • emptyboxemptybox Posts: 13,917
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Under Scottish law, if the deceased is married and has children (legitimate or not), then the spouse is entitled to one third of the moveable estate (not property or land), and children get an equal share of a further third.
    Only a third of the moveable estate plus any property can be distributed by a will.

    If the deceased is unmarried then any children are entitled to an equal share of a half of the moveable estate.
    And if no children but married then the spouse has an entitlement to half.

    But people can choose not to claim these rights.
    And also don't have much relevance when the house makes up a large proportion of the estate.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 22,736
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    I have read a number of stories of children being left out of parents'/parent's wills, often as a result of the parent marrying again and having other children. In same cases children are left out of both parent's wills due to the relationship breaking down.

    I know in some countries, offspring have a legal right to claim a share of a parent's estate, so do you think this should apply in this country also? Should children fathered out of wedlock also have a claim to their father's estate, even if they had nothing to do with his family life?

    Nope. a person should have every right to leave their money where they want.

    I know for a fact my mum and dad have written their local animal sanctuary into their will, which I think is lovely.
  • stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    I disagree. Once you have a child, you have an unconditional duty to provide for that child. Baring very exceptional circumstances (e.g. the abuse of the parent/s by the child), parents who cut their children out of their wills are revolting.

    Exceptional circumstances like, say, the child ceasing to be a child?
  • monkeydave68monkeydave68 Posts: 2,421
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    molliepops wrote: »
    The children should get what the parents will to them, it is their estate to do with as they wish.

    what if they have made a ton of money more than they should on their house value at the expense of their children's generation ?
  • bgtensionbgtension Posts: 764
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Bloody greedy kids:mad:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    stoatie wrote: »
    Exceptional circumstances like, say, the child ceasing to be a child?

    I use child to mean an individual's offspring. It doesn't matter if they are grown. Upon death, the offspring of the deceased should be entitled to a share of the estate, regardless of the wishes of the deceased. It is rightfully theirs.

    Imagine finding out, upon the death of your last remaining parent, that he/she has left all of his/her possessions to his/her most recent wife/husband and their children.
  • turquoiseblueturquoiseblue Posts: 2,431
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think our parents should spend all their money before they die, but if they do have any left over they should be entitled to leave it to whoever they choose.
  • MustabusterMustabuster Posts: 5,973
    Forum Member
    Then that's their choice, not yours.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 22,736
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    I use child to mean an individual's offspring. It doesn't matter if they are grown. Upon death, the offspring of the deceased should be entitled to a share of the estate, regardless of the wishes of the deceased. It is rightfully theirs.

    Imagine finding out, upon the death of your last remaining parent, that he/she has left all of his/her possessions to his/her most recent wife/husband and their children.

    If they want some readies, they can go out and bloody well earn some.

    It was never their money, as they were over 18 and legally responsible for themselves.
  • tremetreme Posts: 5,445
    Forum Member
    Yes, but only because I stand to inherit all my father's rental properties.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If they want some readies, they can go out and bloody well earn some.

    It was never their money, as they were over 18 and legally responsible for themselves.

    Let us take a look at Scripture.

    'He'eth who die shall leave his Earthly possessions to his offspring, for they are the only rightful claimants to his silver, land, livestock and cars and stuff.'

    Sorry, but the Bible backs me up here. Unless you want to argue with God?
  • swehsweh Posts: 13,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I like it when people die intestate.

    If people don't want to give their kids anything, then they shouldn't. You leech.
  • turquoiseblueturquoiseblue Posts: 2,431
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    Let us take a look at Scripture.

    'He'eth who die shall leave his Earthly possessions to his offspring, for they are the only rightful claimants to his silver, land, livestock and cars and stuff.'

    Sorry, but the Bible backs me up here. Unless you want to argue with God?

    That sort of evidence isn't what most people look to in guiding them through their lives.
  • Kyle_TKyle_T Posts: 1,001
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    I use child to mean an individual's offspring. It doesn't matter if they are grown. Upon death, the offspring of the deceased should be entitled to a share of the estate, regardless of the wishes of the deceased. It is rightfully theirs.

    Imagine finding out, upon the death of your last remaining parent, that he/she has left all of his/her possessions to his/her most recent wife/husband and their children.

    No it is not. Parents do not have to provide anything for their offspring once they turn 16, so I don't see why anyone should be entitled to someone else's property merely because they are related. It is a law I would like to see changed.

    Also, If your last remaining parent did that then I would imagine there would be reasons why they did so.
  • Chasing ShadowsChasing Shadows Posts: 3,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    Upon death, the offspring of the deceased should be entitled to a share of the estate, regardless of the wishes of the deceased. It is rightfully theirs.

    Since when?
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    Imagine finding out, upon the death of your last remaining parent, that he/she has left all of his/her possessions to his/her most recent wife/husband and their children.

    Let's turn this on its head. Imagine you one day have children - I know this is unlikely because women find you abhorrent and won't ever give you the time of day, let alone sleep with you or bear children by you, but let's pretend.

    And imagine you had a son who turned out to be like your worst nightmare - a nasty, evil, misogynistic, creepy child who made everybody's skin crawl, who was selfish and nobody liked.

    And imagine if you later had more children who were nice, who looked after their parents, who didn't say and do horrible things just to make people feel uncomfortable, and who didn't brag about their sexual prowess and how they would treat women like slaves. Unlikely I know, but again, let's keep up the pretence.

    Now, wouldn't you like the choice about who you left your money to, rather than allowing that nasty little runt getting some of his grubby little paws on it?

    Perhaps that's how your parents feel at this very moment???
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 22,736
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    Let us take a look at Scripture.

    'He'eth who die shall leave his Earthly possessions to his offspring, for they are the only rightful claimants to his silver, land, livestock and cars and stuff.'

    Sorry, but the Bible backs me up here. Unless you want to argue with God?

    Then those parents of a religious disposition are quite welcome to follow the words of God.

    For everyone else they make their own decision about their money.
  • Jane Doh!Jane Doh! Posts: 43,307
    Forum Member
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    Let us take a look at Scripture.

    'He'eth who die shall leave his Earthly possessions to his offspring, for they are the only rightful claimants to his silver, land, livestock and cars and stuff.'

    Sorry, but the Bible backs me up here. Unless you want to argue with God?

    Nothing to do with god or what is written in the Bible.

    People should leave their possessions to whomever they want.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jane Doh! wrote: »
    Nothing to do with god or what is written in the Bible.

    People should leave their possessions to whomever they want.

    Consider the camels.

    If a merchant's camel should wonder into the desert after her owner is put to death, should the merchant's son not make it his duty to don a sheet to brave the sandstorm in rescue of said camel? Does this duty not also work the other way and translate into a right as well as a responsibility?
  • Kyle_TKyle_T Posts: 1,001
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    Consider the camels.

    If a merchant's camel should wonder into the desert after her owner is put to death, should the merchant's son not make it his duty to don a sheet to brave the sandstorm in rescue of said camel? Does this duty not also work the other way and translate into a right as well as a responsibility?

    Not really. That example is fairly stupid too of course.
  • molliepopsmolliepops Posts: 26,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    what if they have made a ton of money more than they should on their house value at the expense of their children's generation ?

    Then think lucky for them, when my parents got to the stage they were thinking of wills we encouraged them to spend the lot and enjoy themselves. We had a lot of laughs towards the end of their lives, memories we will never lose.
    My MIL when she made a will managed to split her family and no one now speaks to each other - their last memories are tainted by that.

    Spend it while you can and enjoy your life I say.
  • MoonyMoony Posts: 15,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    Consider the camels.

    If a merchant's camel should wonder into the desert after her owner is put to death, should the merchant's son not make it his duty to don a sheet to brave the sandstorm in rescue of said camel? Does this duty not also work the other way and translate into a right as well as a responsibility?

    This isn't about camels wandering away though - its about the camels being gifted or given to person or persons who the owner of the camel deems it appropriate.

    A child should have no more right to say what happens to a persons possessions after they are dead as they did whilst they are alive. The owners wishes should trump those of the child regardless of the current status of the owners vital signs.
  • Penny CrayonPenny Crayon Posts: 36,158
    Forum Member
    Freeman000 wrote: »
    I disagree. Once you have a child, you have an unconditional duty to provide for that child. Baring very exceptional circumstances (e.g. the abuse of the parent/s by the child), parents who cut their children out of their wills are revolting.


    Surely the 'duty' expires once they become adults doesn't it?

    I have three 'grown up' kids - when we die of there's anything left it will go three ways - one of them will inherit one of our shops too as he has worked in the family business all his working life. He'll probably get it before we pop or clogs.

    I don't think anything should be assumed though. If I choose to spend it all or leave it to the cats home IT'S MY CHOICE.

    I hate grasping kids who expect to inherit regardless.
Sign In or Register to comment.