Gene Hackman and his wife give their kids nothing in their will and everything goes to charity how do you feel about this

I am not dependent on any inheritance, but this is ridiculous. What sort of parent doesn't want to leave something to their kids?

Giving a large sum of money to charity sounds like (vindictively) not wanting your children to have a single penny of financial relief, ever.

i don’t know how high on the hog his kids are living, (or whether he has grandkids) but is there anyone anywhere who will never need a new roof, need a new hot water heater, need a new garage door opener, need a new (to them) car?

If the kids would all be spending the money on hookers and blow, then yes, far better to have your money embezzled by those at some charity.

i hope gene hackman is in the afterlife feeling proud of himself. It WAS his money, and stiffing all children and all acquaintances WAS his right, but still seems kind of unnecessary to give every last penny for NPR’s new website or for your alma mater’s new science building.

His kids could use their current income on

Same thing happened to a family friend of mine. Wife was a congressman's widow so she inherited a lot of wealth. She married her second husband and died before updating her will because she never anticipated him outliving her, they weren't in a rush to update their will.

When she died, he inherited her money, and he had four stepdaughters who he loved and one son. He would've wanted to split the money equally but by the time he tried to do something about it in his will, he was already too deep into alzheimers for him to have the pwoer to do so.

It's generally unintentional in these cases.

None of your business (unless you are one of their kids) and none of mine.

FYI, the dog died a slow, painful death in a crate due to dehydration and starvation.

The will only governs assets subject to probate (which probably isn't a lot given they had trusts set up). And actually the probate residuary beneficiaries in the will are a variety of trusts, and we don't know the beneficiary of the trusts. Likely the children and grandchildren are at least partial trust beneficiaries.

I have very elderly parents whose memories are starting to go. I go their house 2x a week and get them groceries and make sure the house is in order. Simple things like changing furnace filters and the like. It is their money but I would feel bad if they left me nothing. I don't need their money but at least something ( the house or car or some of their belongings) that says we thank you for all taking care of us when no one else would. I've audited enough charities to know that a lot of people get rich off donor's generosity. The salaries and perks paid to executives of charitable organizations is beyond ridiculous.

Part of my desire to leave something to my kids is to partially comp them for my mistakes. Money was seemingly tight when they were in school but just a few years later I'm sitting on more money than I know what to do with considering their mom is chronically ill and we can't travel. I've opened my wallet on Christmas and birthdays but regret not being more generous during their college days. They all graduated debt-free and do better than me at my peak income wise, but they're good kids and frankly deserve a little windfall

Exactly. He sounds like a miserable sob. 95% now going to charity executives. I bet these executives leave their wealth to family.

You're an idiot.

How do you know he didn't give them a stash years ago? Not everyone waits until the end.

Yes they do.

You asked my why it's an outrage for them to be disinherited. I explained why they do have inheritance rights. Now you flatly contradict it but make no argument, other than that you are apparently offended.

More backward than I thought. Like it or not, this IS the law where the Napoleonic code holds sway, which includes most of Europe and the French-colonized world. Having found out your version of inheritance rights isn't universal, you'll have to come up with a rational argument why it's best.

I may have insulted you, but I also provided a rational argument. Ball's in your court.

My parents don't have 80 million, but they are very well-off and have made it clear that they will be donating everything to charity. They invested huge amounts of time and money into my education, guaranteeing that I started my adulthood debt-free and well-positioned to make good money. So why would they leave me that money? It'll do more good at the charities of their choosing than sitting in my bank account.

you're halfway there.

You apparently agree that all the money should go to charity. Now suppose you didn't agree.

Would your parents have made their fortune without you? Would they even have stayed married? Would they not perhaps have gotten depressed, become ill and died much younger in misery?

Was your education for your own benefit, or for theirs, perhaps even more? If you stop and think about it (before it's too late) you might give yourself more credit for enriching their lives.

INCORRECT!

Any decent parent would never leave any significant financial assets to their kids - assuming the kids are adults and mentally competent to make their own living.

How about first you provide a rational argument for why anybody (competent adult) is entitled to their parent's money. (and no, the fact that this is the law in some places does not constitute a rational argument)

1. it's none of my business. 2. i don't know him. therefore, i don't care.

His kids that didn’t care to give him a call for over a week as he was wondering around his house with no clue what was going on with his wife on the floor dead? Good. F them. They don’t deserve a dime.