Maybe all 3 should get their money parcelled out.
That would teach David, wouldn't it?

I understand where you are coming from and why she should feel centered out but it sounds to me like they have her best interests in mind. If she is likely to drink it up then they might be doing the right thing...If she truly is sober, then they should rethink but sobriety is a fragile thing and if she is still in the throes of being a drunk, then I think they are doing her a favor by not allowing her to waste her money...

Why not put it in a trust and make another party approve of each "withdrawl"?

If they put it in trust it seems like it should not be David. We put our $$ in trust for our kids and the oldest girl is 13 years older than our next child she is in charge, it is written up that the other two can get their money in full at a certain age and in the mean time the older girl can give them money for schooling, housing, or any emergencies~~she is a fair girl and we know she will take care of her siblings.

Acousin is in the same boat. He had a problem with drugs and alcohol and manageing money. Everyone else got the inheritence and he gets a monthly allowance. Also, whatever he makes in income he gets a match. It has worked out well for their situation. Some people can't handle the responsibility of coming into a lot of money at once.

While I agree with Ruthie that it sounds like they are merely watching out for her to put strings on her inheritance and not the others is unfair.

If she is considered legally competent to manage her own affairs then the inheritance should be given her the same way as it is to the others.

It should be hers to use as she sees fit and if she drinks it away so be it. We might disapprove of how anyone spends their inheritance, maybe David will buy a boat or give his to a cult or something, for all we know.

If dad wants to control his money after he's gone than the whole thing should be in trust for everyone.

I tend to agree with Wildchild, and so does my DH, even though he hasn't been a big supporter of her in the past. It just seems as though she should have the right to make the decisions about the money herself, as she has not been declared legally incompetent. The is making very hard feelings in the family. I just don't know what to say to her to make her feel better.

What Wildchild said It should be hers to use as she sees fit and if she drinks it away so be it. We might disapprove of how anyone spends their inheritance, maybe David will buy a boat or give his to a cult or something, for all we know.

It isn't fair to treat her differently. She is a grown woman and not a child.

I think the inheritance is being done as fairly as possible. It's never right for anyone to put that kind of temptation in front of someone they know probably won't be able to withstand it.

If I were the parent in this situation, I'd do exactly the same thing--give the responsible children their money outright to handle/invest/spend as they liked, but I would NEVER give a large lump sum to an addict. It would be put into a trust, with a responsible, trustworthy family member looking out for her and her money.

If she feels as if she's being treated differently--she is. But she needs to ask herself why? Because she's ACTED differently than the others.

Know that wasn't the answer you wanted to hear, but I truly believe it's the safe and right way to go in this situation.

You don't say exactly how much money is involved nor how large the increments would be. If the increments are small they could just be piddled away. On the other hand a lump sum could really make a difference in a positive way if she is truly working at making a fresh start.

Who would be managing this money held for her? At the very least it should not be a family member. Are the others willing to pay a percentage of their inheritance to get someone neutral appointed to oversee the account?

I still stand by my first post. While it is true nobody is owed an inheritance it is just plain wrong in this case to have different rules for the one since the inheritance is to be divided equally.

If she is a recovering alcoholic and is doing well this is a slap in the face to her. I hope brother dearest doesn't live in a glass house.

if she had a physically apparent disease, bet you would agree to a trust fund for her... besides, with proper managment, she could very well do much better, and get interest without losing principal...

I'm not exactly sure how much money each is getting, but I believe each of the three family members will be getting hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the plan is to have her brother and sister oversee the money. Also, her brother and sister each know the amount that they will be getting, but they won't tell my sil. In every way she is being treated as less deserving.

oh my, I see both sides. I would feel awful knowing I made her demise possible. On the other hand, given in increments, she may waste it a way, only slower. HOPEFULLY she will take the high road and invest wisely.
I'd hate to be in David's situation! sorry I don't have any advice!

I think it's awful the way we decide to exert control over other people. Like WildChild suggested, who on earth is the brother to think his own expenditures are exempt from scrutiny? It should not have been up to him. If I were her, I'd be terribly offended. Number one, she is not that way any more. She has made valiant efforts to turn her life around. Why should anyone second guess that as if she just cannot be trusted or as if she were a child. If she were still on a destructive path, then I could see it. But, I still would not be able to fathom it being a brother's decision. It's the decision of the provider, not the brother, even though I know the brother convinced their father. Nevertheless, it is not fair to her. I am all for dismissing past offenses/behavior (in such circumstances as these) when a person has obviously changed.

Since it is all said and done, then I don't suppose anyone's opinion matters. Is it possible your husband can talk to his dad? In the very least, begin her on regular stipends for x amount of time - since she just has to be treated this way - to test the waters. For that matter, they all should be put on interval installments for x amount of time for each of them to judge the other's investments. If one has to be judged, then they all should be. He'll see what his siblings think of his frequent trips to girlie clubs or whatever other midlife-crisis-suddenly-I'm-rich behavior he succombs to. And, don't think he does not already have some of it planned.

It's not my husband's father. It's my husband's brother's wife's father. His mind isn't very good any more, he's kind of confused. You're right, that sil feels it's all about control. She is pretty upset about it.

With her not even knowing what her inheritance should be what will prevent "good son" David and the sister from skimming? There has to be some oversight. Someone outside the situation needs to talk to dad.

She's an adult, she's competent. This is disgraceful on the whole family's part. What next? She rocks the boat and they tell her the money is gone. She has some legal rights here. Either pop disinherits her and takes the heat or full disclosure. This is a train wreck. She should see if there is a free or low cost legal clinic to help her. I don't trust the two others. My BS detector is screaming.

an inheritance is a GREAT object for splitting families apart.

I would like to see them all get their monies only after they have advice from a financial planner!

ALL THREE.

Everything else just isn't fair.

I bought heat and airconditioners for upstairs and downstairs with my inheritance from my dad, as well as a hot tub, and a trip to Germany. I still have lots left over, to do with how I choose.

My husband bought a bicycle built for three with his inheritance from his mom.

We are both happy with our purchases. Of course, you can see, where mine came in very handy, while we needed new heat and air. ;)

Moni

Reality check here.
I hope father has an attorney who specializes in eldercare.

Father is still alive.
Son has Power of attorney...and it can be assumed that he has exercised it. Sounds like one sister is secondary on POA...DD #2 has no rights to fathers money while he is alive and her siblings are exercising the POA.

Father's will has all 3 siblings getting equal shares, but DD#3's share is to be put in a trust, with sibs as trustees giving her structured payouts after father's death.

First, unless the trust is established before father's death, by the father, the directive to executors does not have to be followed. Upon father's death, DD#2 has legal right to 1/3 of the residual estate, and would have to agree to a trust for it to be legal. In other words....father's directive is only a suggestion, and would not stand up in court.

Secondly....at father's death, DD#2 has legal right (as an heir) to ask for a formal accounting of all financial transactions executed by her siblings under the POA from the initial exercise of the POA until father's death. And, as executors, a similar accounting from the executors of the will for the time from father's death until final distribution. Either accounting can be challenged in court, if she brings charges of mismanagement.

Again, I hope for everyone's sake, that the will was drawn up by an attorney who specializes in eldercare and estate managerment.

Wills executed differently among siblings who feel an inherent right to be treated equally will often create hard feelings. Nothing short of giving the SIL the full lump sum will probably make her feel better, truth be told. If the inheritance amount is equally shared, and not knowing much of the family dynamics, etc. it's entirely possible the SIL on an allowance will fare better than those receiving lump sums - less possibility of her regarding the amount as bottomless and falling prey to the kinds of conspicuous consumption that can occur when "suddenly wealthy". The real pitfall would be the coexecutors holding funds captive and withholding the allowance to punish behaviors.

Perhaps, while the father is alive and in control of his wits, a more equitable solution for thre SIL might be that X number of years of sobriety and financial responsibility would result in the release of her inheritance balance in full. I would also exercise some caution so there are no grounds to charge that undue pressure was applied in the creation of this will. Seems like the coexecutors - really everyone directly involved - ought to pull back, especially since you are aware of what's going on and could be sucked in to take sides.

But I really can't think of a more devastating scenario for a 93 year old man with cancer to endure than seeing his children haggling over his will and money.