When someone passes away, the last thing anyone wants is a family feud. Yet bad planning, or no planning at all, can create arguments that drag on for months, sometimes years. Don’t let that happen to you. Here are twelve ways that poor estate planning may ruin family relationships, according to our readers. Which one do you think causes the biggest drama?
Featured Image Credit: Shutterstock.
Joint accounts cut out everyone else
Some parents add only one child’s name to a bank account to make things easier, which sounds simple enough. But the co-owner inherits everything in that account. The other siblings are left out, turning that single signature into a fight over fairness & trust that’s rather difficult to smooth over.
Co-executors disagree and stall
Parents sometimes think naming all their kids as executors avoids any hurt feelings. In reality, it’s a recipe for chaos, unless they see eye-to-eye on selling the house or paying bills. Nothing moves forward. And when that happens, the courts get dragged in, and family dinners become a whole lot more tense.
Blended families see stepchildren disinherited
Estate plans matter even more in second marriages because a lack of clear instructions may pass everything to the surviving spouse. This leaves kids from the first marriage with nothing. Unfortunately, default state laws wipe out promises made over the years. It doesn’t take much for stepkids & spouses to stop speaking altogether.
Ambiguous or conflicting papers invite contests
Homemade wills or old drafts left lying around usually cause chaos, since nobody knows whether that scribbled note is valid, or whether they intended for an unsigned copy. Such questions lead to will contests & lawsuits. As soon as lawyers get involved, siblings stop trusting each other’s stories, and they start treating each other like opponents.
Leaving siblings a house breeds partition suits
By far, one of the hardest things is passing down a house to multiple kids. There’s always a child who wants to sell & another who wants to keep it. Suddenly, they’re at a standstill. The law allows one of them to force a sale when they don’t agree. Nothing says “family tension” like suing your brother to sell the house, so it’s really no surprise when they start arguing,
Dying intestate turns siblings into opponents over control
A lack of a will means that the state picks who’s in charge of the estate. When there are multiple kids, they’re able to fight over who gets appointed, although these fights aren’t necessarily about stuff. Their goal is simply control. Once siblings are dragging each other to court to prove they’re the responsible ones, there’s no way they’ll get any sense of trust back. That’s been ruined entirely.
No guardian named for minor children creates custody fights
Parents who fail to name a guardian leave the courts in charge. This leads to relatives filing petitions, often at the same time, and things quickly get messy. People who once got along are suddenly hiring lawyers & sitting through hearings as they argue over who knows best. The relationship between family members is usually destroyed by the time a judge decides.
Skipping a built-in mediation step fuels lawsuits
Some wills include a simple clause that calls for discussions with a mediator whenever there’s an issue. But not everyone includes this. Without it, every argument seems to head straight to court, and legal fees rise & paperwork drags on. It’s not long before siblings stop talking to each other directly.
Uneven distributions without explanation cause suspicion
Leaving one child more than another isn’t always the problem, as sometimes, the issue comes when no one explains why. Siblings left with less usually assume the other sibling manipulated or pressured the parent into it. Sure, the plan made sense in the parent’s mind. But the silence breeds tension & fuels years of bitterness.
Naming an in-law to control money breeds gatekeeping
Yes, putting an in-law in charge of a trust or estate sounds like a good idea when they’re organized. But it’s not good when one branch of the family has control. That leaves the rest feeling shut out, as information gets filtered & requests for money take longer. It doesn’t take long for suspicions to start to grow.
No access rules for the house invites “first-in” looting claims
Houses hold a lot more than just financial value, as they’re also full of memories. Failing to set ground rules on who can enter allows the first person with keys to get in before the rest, so furniture may begin disappearing. Then come the accusations of stealing, and maybe police or locksmiths getting involved. Now, the damage between siblings is permanent.
No accounting requirement turns trust into secrecy
Not having a clause that forces regular updates means the person running the trust doesn’t have to share much. That leads to others wondering what’s happening & assuming the worst, as well as rumors spreading. Simply requiring a yearly statement with receipts would solve most of it. But without that, suspicion takes over completely.
Like our content? Be sure to follow us.
