Kids don't choose to come into the world. Their parents choose to bring them into the world. When they do they acquire certain responsibilities and obligations towards those kids. Some parents are deadbeat useless pos's and ignore their responsibilities and obligations.
They have no right to wealth accumulated by their father. Acknowledging that doesn’t make me a “backward savage”.
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.
This is the case in Spain. Biological children receive at least 1/3 of the inheritance, split equally, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
The real shame is that he worked too hard. Rather than spend every dime he had, which is the entire point of making a buck, he left it sitting. Nobody deserved a dime of what he made. I guess it's a good thing it went to charity but it's quite a shame another human worked too hard for most of their life for what ultimately turned out to be paper sitting in a building somewhere backed by a rock that someone else says is worth something. Hopefully he enjoyed some of it.
When my dad died, we got nothing, except a few thousand in life insurance. I know he had a lot more, but when he died, he was married again after my mother passed away, and she had a teenage son and a teenage daughter in the house, so I was okay with it. That said, when my MIL dies, I want to see the money she leaves skip a generation, and go to the grandkids, as they need the boost from it far more than her kids do.
They have no right to wealth accumulated by their father. Acknowledging that doesn’t make me a “backward savage”.
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.
You missed that it is not the law where Hackman lived/died, and you made no compelling answer to why it should be, merely called him a “backwards savage”.
My argument is simple - his kids are not entitled to any of his wealth.
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.
You missed that it is not the law where Hackman lived/died, and you made no compelling answer to why it should be, merely called him a “backwards savage”.
My argument is simple - his kids are not entitled to any of his wealth.
Entitled? No. but that does not mean he is selfish to horde all the money his entire life, and only let go of it after death. Whether he chooses a charity or children is less relevant, but to bypass his family shows he has no paternal love, which is a miserable commentary on the man.
Per the NYTimes, Hackman put their inheritance into trusts, which are not a matter of public record.
New York Times wrote:
The children are listed in Mr. Hackman’s will, though not expressly as beneficiaries. The will mentions multiple trusts, the details of which are not public.
Mr. Hackman’s personal representative, Ms. Peters, described the three children as heirs in court papers.
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.
He had advanced Alzheimer's. I used to speak to my mom almost every day, but since her condition has worsened, it can be more than a week between times that I speak to her. I have caregivers with her all the time and now communicate with them much more than with my mom.
In this case, Hackman's wife was taking care of him and he had a lot of money for supplemental caregivers. I don't know the relationship between the kids and the stepmother, but if it wasn't great, I can definitely see a situation where the kids wouldn't speak to him every week.
This is the case in Spain. Biological children receive at least 1/3 of the inheritance, split equally, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
That's awesome! I will become a Spanish citizen, have 6 kids, and DOUBLE my wealth, since each of my six kids is required to receive 1/3 of it. I guess the Spanish government makes a matching contribution in that case. Reportedly, "there's nothing anyone can do about it" so they ALL will receive at least 1/3. Nice.
I should have 9 kids there in Spain... Dang, what a great deal.
It is none of our business what they did with their lives, money, and will. However, what bothers me most is why, with all of that money and Gene in an advanced Alzheimer’s state, Betsy didn’t hire any help. He couldn’t make decisions like that anymore and he belonged in an appropriate level care facility whether he wanted to go or not.
It is none of our business what they did with their lives, money, and will. However, what bothers me most is why, with all of that money and Gene in an advanced Alzheimer’s state, Betsy didn’t hire any help. He couldn’t make decisions like that anymore and he belonged in an appropriate level care facility whether he wanted to go or not.
It's negligent to leave a person with advanced Alzheimer's without a caregiver, but Hackman was apparently left alone for several hours on the 11th. It would be like leaving a toddler alone at home, unsupervised. Edit: It's a little fishy to leave a "loved one" with advanced Alzheimer's unsupervised. they could easily get into trouble. I think it would be a police report to elder services. It's neglectful.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
You missed that it is not the law where Hackman lived/died, and you made no compelling answer to why it should be, merely called him a “backwards savage”.
My argument is simple - his kids are not entitled to any of his wealth.
Entitled? No. but that does not mean he is selfish to horde all the money his entire life, and only let go of it after death. Whether he chooses a charity or children is less relevant, but to bypass his family shows he has no paternal love, which is a miserable commentary on the man.
Sure, it’s not the approach I would take, but I don’t feel bad for the kids nor find it to make Hackman a savage.
Exactly, but it's unusual to leave 80 million to charity and not even give his biological children any of it, since he had so much. The stepmom must've hated the bio kids. If you read the article, it seems like they won't have to deal with the will since Betsy died a week before Gene.
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.
It's not that simple. Anyone with elderly parents knows that calling them and getting them to answer are 2 different things. And if they were estranged from the mother in law, calling a father who probably didn't know who they were isn't as heartless as it sounds.
When did they die? When did she die? No contact from the kids? Wouldn't the kids call and check on their aging parents? Especially with him in such bad condition. Likely the kids were not in their lives at all.
Kids don't choose to come into the world. Their parents choose to bring them into the world. When they do they acquire certain responsibilities and obligations towards those kids. Some parents are deadbeat useless pos's and ignore their responsibilities and obligations.
"Obligations and responsibilities" do not include leaving inheritance for adult kids who don't need it.
Kids don't get to choose their parents. They should not be getting more money than other kids just because they happen to have richer parents.
I have intentionally left a trivial amount to 2 of my children. The others will split it evenly. The 2 have completely estranged themselves. Perhaps that could change in the future but no one is owed anything. Showering them with more money than they could manage isn't a loving gift. My paternal instincts or 'love' as 55YO states above is not to facilitate bad choices from unearned riches
The original post makes assumptions that I don't think are justified. The will actually puts everything into a trust. The trustee in turn distributes the assets according to the directions in the trust. The terms of the trust are not public. It's POSSIBLE that the trust disinherits the kids and gives everything to charity. It's also possible that the trust gives everything to the kids. We don't know.
Having everything inherited by a trust is standard estate planning strategy so that everything can be distributed privately and not publicly, which is what happens in probate. That is, instead of having to identify publicly in probate court that the decedent owned xyz property and investments and asking a probate judge to approve that the property will go to John and Jane Doe, the judge just rules that all of the estate goes into the trust (public) and then the trustee distributes the assets according to the trust (private).
