Not the 1st celebs to nix a dime to offspring. Family obviously means nothing to these kind of people. They desrved to die alone.
What a load of cr@p.
Everyone, who is not disabled in some way, should expect to make their own living and should expect to, and want to, inherit nothing other than perhaps some items of sentimental value.
The world would be a much better place if everyone gave away their fortunes to responsible charities and people expected to make their own living and not inherit any wealth.
Not the 1st celebs to nix a dime to offspring. Family obviously means nothing to these kind of people. They desrved to die alone.
What a load of cr@p.
Everyone, who is not disabled in some way, should expect to make their own living and should expect to, and want to, inherit nothing other than perhaps some items of sentimental value.
The world would be a much better place if everyone gave away their fortunes to responsible charities and people expected to make their own living and not inherit any wealth.
He apparently was not mentally well though so they will likely contest the will.
To your point, while I don't completely agree with the other poster they should have given something to their children.
I am speaking as someone that never inherited even a dime in my life but intend to give everything I have to my children (basically my house) who are struggling now so hopefully their children don't have to struggle also.
The children have the right to enjoy and possess the family fortune after the parent dies, as they do while the parent is alive. For the parent to deprive them after death is as cruel and unnatural as to deprive them while alive. The Napolonic way recognizes that their natural claim to the inheritance overrides the "will" of a dead person.
This also protects the heirs from each other, as they fight to preemptively push each other out of the inheritance by manipulating the elderly parent.
Pardon?
They have no right to wealth accumulated by their father. Acknowledging that doesn’t make me a “backward savage”.
I think the OP asked what we think. Not that it was a problem.
At the end of the day, your kids are related to you, that's it. It shouldn't entitle them to a lottery win if they are otherwise choosing to not be part of your life or not taking care of you.
Do you know anything about his relationship with the kids? Maybe they were abusive or stole money from him to support a drug habit. Maybe he knew the money would all get squandered on prostitutes and drugs and he thought it was better to send the money where it might help people.
All three of them were abusive drug addicts? Sounds unlikely but if it were true that’s an indictment on Hackman’s parenting, not his kids.
The children have the right to enjoy and possess the family fortune after the parent dies, as they do while the parent is alive. For the parent to deprive them after death is as cruel and unnatural as to deprive them while alive. The Napolonic way recognizes that their natural claim to the inheritance overrides the "will" of a dead person.
This also protects the heirs from each other, as they fight to preemptively push each other out of the inheritance by manipulating the elderly parent.
Pardon?
They have no right to wealth accumulated by their father. Acknowledging that doesn’t make me a “backward savage”.
This is LR. Opening your mouth suffices to be called a backward savage.
Hang with me for a second, but my son will likely get almost nothing when I die.
That is one of the most ridiculous traditions ever. All it does is give old people power over their descendants and cause joy at the parents passing. Any inheritance my son would likely get will be given to him by the time he’s thirty so he has the ability to use that money to live his best life while I’m still alive, not just after I die.
None of us have any idea how much support Hackman and his wife gave his children while he was alive.
The children have the right to enjoy and possess the family fortune after the parent dies, as they do while the parent is alive. For the parent to deprive them after death is as cruel and unnatural as to deprive them while alive. The Napolonic way recognizes that their natural claim to the inheritance overrides the "will" of a dead person.
This also protects the heirs from each other, as they fight to preemptively push each other out of the inheritance by manipulating the elderly parent.
Ok, so have no assets on the books visible for the French laws to see while alive, spend it before you die, so children can't assess the "family fortune" while the parent is alive (or dead).
Not the 1st celebs to nix a dime to offspring. Family obviously means nothing to these kind of people. They desrved to die alone.
What a load of cr@p.
Everyone, who is not disabled in some way, should expect to make their own living and should expect to, and want to, inherit nothing other than perhaps some items of sentimental value.
The world would be a much better place if everyone gave away their fortunes to responsible charities and people expected to make their own living and not inherit any wealth.
Everyone, who is not disabled in some way, should expect to make their own living and should expect to, and want to, inherit nothing other than perhaps some items of sentimental value.
The world would be a much better place if everyone gave away their fortunes to responsible charities and people expected to make their own living and not inherit any wealth.
Evidently being that both the husband (father) and wife (stepmother) lied dead for several days shows me that their children never checked on them. I hear from my children daily even though neither live with me. It's tragic that they died alone, but that may have been the way they lived their lives.
Messy estate planning. Hackman and his wife had reciprocal wills, which is very common. Problem is that there were two different trusts set up and his wife had a provision in her will stating that there were no children. That can be attacked as an error in drafting and can be an opening for the children to get something to resolve the settlement of the estate.
It is not clear whether Hackman's kids never saw any money from their father and that he intended to not give them a penny when they died. Most high net worth individuals will set up trusts for their children during their lifetime to transfer their wealth instead of leaving everything to pass up death, which could trigger steep estate taxes. Not clear whether Hackman's kids had trusts. But it seems like they had a good relationship after Hackman was absent during his prime acting days.
There is definitely a case for preventing the transfer of huge fortunes. People who die with huge estates are usually people who started businesses that grew into huge enterprises like the Waltons. They tend to hold on to their shares until the bitter end in order to retain control over their company. When their interest in the business passes to their kids at death, you do end up an oligarchy that can have some real permanence to it. There is nothing beneficial about keeping a large corporation like Walmart under the control of the same family in perpetuity.
I don't think that it is a good thing for parents to cut their kids off from receiving any sort of inheritance. Every parent that has an estate that is more than a 2004 Honda CRV and a collection of National Geographic magazines is money that probably could have been spent on a family vacation or college tuition for a grandchild but was saved instead. When parents overshoot their savings, it is only fair to pass that money on to the kids in the end. But when you have an estate that is so big that the kids instantly become independently wealthy, that is something that should be taxed heavily to prevent families from becoming oligarchs. My stepfather's brother started a tool and die shop that ended up a major manufacturer of non-OEM auto parts in the US. He sold the company when he retired for $150 mil. The estate was split between his two kids. All he did for my stepfather was buy him an annuity that pays $2k a month even though my stepfather had a terrible career and retired with a very small pension and a tiny 401k. One of the kids has lost about half the money trying to be a real estate wheeler dealer. The other just put the money in the hands of a good wealth management firm and spends all his time between a beach house in the Caymans and a ski chalet in Courchevel.
Evidently being that both the husband (father) and wife (stepmother) lied dead for several days shows me that their children never checked on them. I hear from my children daily even though neither live with me. It's tragic that they died alone, but that may have been the way they lived their lives.
Most of my money/assets are going to charity. A small percentage to my sister and mother should they outlive me. They know and don’t care. I told my mom I don’t care what she doesn’t with her money, but regardless I at least check on her once a week by text at least.
I don’t know why anyone feels obligated to anyone else’s assets when they pass. I hope to die with zero
If he did the will decades ago, I think it stands.
I would feel like a loser if I didn't leave my kids anything. Sure, give some to charity, but do that before you die if your feeling so benevolent.
That was my thought. It is not very magnanimous to have all that money sitting there, and not give it away before you die. Charities depend on resources, and to keep the funds to yourself shows little true concern for the charity. If they really cared, they would have given a portion while alive, instead of keeping it all "just in case".
Now this criticism is all void if they had also donated a larger sum while living.