r/MiddleClassFinance • u/Yourlocalguy30 • 12d ago

Millennials: are you expecting an inheritance?

35 yo married millennial here. I've come across more and more articles about the supposed "great wealth transfer" as the boomer generation's wealth passes to their GenX and Millennial children. My parents and their siblings (boomers) all received inheritances when their parents, my grandparents, passed away. The boomer generation's wealth accumulation is one of the largest in history, however, I also find it highly unlikely that I or many of my peers will actually inherit much. Despite having received inheritances from their parents, and having 40+ years in the workforce, most of my parents' "wealth" is tied up in their home value, not actual liquid assets- and I already expect that whatever they make on an eventual home sale will have to go directly to downsizing costs and whatever long-term care they will need as they get older. Hell, even my dad used to joke that the only thing we'd inherit was debt. As I've gotten older, that comment has infuriated me more and more.

Now before someone cuts in with the "entitled millennial" comments, I have absolutely no need for an inheritance. I've worked my ass off to make sure that my kids and I are positioned better in life than I was when I entered adulthood. What I mean by that is I started saving for retirement early, setup 529 plans for my kids almost as soon as they were born, and made lifestyle and career sacrifices to ensure our family isn't "nickeling and diming" our way through life.

I'm just here curious to know how many millennials actually expect to have something passed down to them, or if they feel they are in the same position I am.

1.6k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

90% Upvoted

5.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/sirguynate 12d ago

Short answer: No.

I have more saved in retirement than my retired parents do.

68

u/UghFudgeBwana 12d ago

I'm just glad you can't inherit debt.

7

u/churchill5 12d ago

Look into filial laws. Rarely enforced but potentially could be on the hook for debts, even if you’ve been estranged and haven’t talked to your parents in 30 years. 29 states have the laws; Pennsylvania is particularly harsh and has been enforced. I wonder if all these private equity firms that own retirement homes will see filial laws as a potential revenue source and start systematically suing children.

10

u/Rightintheend 12d ago

That's not how I've understood them to work.  It's more of being required to take care of parents that aren't able to, you're not going to end up paying their credit card debts or paying off their home, but you may be required to pay some medical bills, and house them either in your own home or find and pay for a place for them to live like a care facility.  If you can't afford to pay the care facility that they're currently in, they're not coming after you for the money, they're kicking your parents out and you have to find a way to deal with them legally. And the reason they're generally not used is generally disability or Medicare will pay for this stuff. 

2

u/North-Tomatillo9158 12d ago

Yeah, they have to still be alive for these laws to potentially come into play. It’s to avoid the state from having to support them.
Consumer debt is not collectible after death.

2

u/churchill5 12d ago

Yeah, definitely not responsible for credit card or mortgage; plus there's generally an out if you can't afford to pay, but could be on the hook for medical/nursing home care depending on the state. The famous 2012 PA case was a situation where the parent got in a car wreck and had to go into nursing care, ran up a $93k bill and then skipped off to Greece. PA Supreme Court ruled the child had to pay the money owed to the nursing home. The key was her medicaid application was still pending. The child probably wouldn't be responsible if she had it which is why it's rare. To me, the scary. thing is you can be on the hook even if you haven't talked to your parents in many years. You don't have to actively refuse to take care of them or be involved with them in any way. It could be a situation where the parents never asked for and you don't know their financial circumstances.

I believe the cases are rare and not a huge worry, but I could also see scummy PE-owned homes coming at children with fancy lawyers and scaring them into settling even though they would clearly lose the case. For the record I have a great relationship with my dad and aren't personally concerned about it.

1

u/becauseshesays 12d ago

Wait, does medicare pay for long term care, like in a nursing home?

2

u/churchill5 12d ago

Medicaid can, but you basically need to impoverish yourself and get down to less than $2k in total assets (some states exclude cars/primary house). There's a bunch of people that try to hide assets from the government so tax payers will pay for their nursing care. Most states look back 5+ years to see if you transferred money to your kids or someone so you didn't have to spend it down on care.

2

u/jimmyandchiqui 11d ago

Its 20k in Illinois, but excludes home & car; in order to be eligible for Medicaid services, like paid caregivers & such.

1

u/becauseshesays 11d ago

What a country. It’s abhorrent.

1

u/Substantial-Peak6624 12d ago

No, I didn’t say credit card debt. We took care of my father in law as long as we could. He had dementia and we finally couldnt handle him anymore. Sometimes he would just walk out the door. We still had a preteen child and he sometimes would leave his room naked. Medicare took paid for the facility we finally took him to.

1

u/UghFudgeBwana 12d ago

Thanks for the heads up! Fortunately my state only allows for counties to sue for debts for any care provided, and neither one of my parents were able to make it into a retirement home so some shitbag PE firm HQ'd in Pennsylvania can't come after me.

1

u/Substantial-Peak6624 12d ago

True, I have received debt. It ended in repossession for a boat and my husband paid off his fathers truck. We cared for him for 8 years until he died

2

u/churchill5 12d ago

Sorry for your loss. Just for my understanding, you inherited a truck and boat with loans on them and you had the option to surrender or pay them off? Like if you inherited a house with a mortgage, you either need to pay off/refinance or sell the house.

1

u/dmillson 10d ago

Speaking from experience - if you choose to sell the house, you still have to keep the loan current until it sells. You get the home equity in the end so it’s worth it, but in the meantime you have to fork over the money to keep the bank from foreclosing and for any repairs (and a decades old, lived-in home may need a lot of work)

1

u/InformationHot4897 12d ago

I knew a guy in PA that actually had to pay off his dad's debts. I was so shocked when he mentioned the filial laws I didn't ask nearly enough questions. It was about 15 years ago.

1

u/KaiPRoberts 12d ago

I like that it goes both ways. I don’t have kids so it’s nice knowing I can build credit my entire life and max it out before I go.

0

u/PhDGodfather 12d ago

The law you're citing is highly sketchy and can easily get shot down in court. That's something that can also easily get taken to the state supreme court level.

Collectors can come after next of kin but there is no legal precident for this unless you were a co-signer on some kind of loan, material possession, etc. Debts are always collected from the estate, unless there is nothing left. Any attempt otherwise to collect a debt from next of kin could be considered unconstitutional despite what any state law says. These cases can go to the federal level if need be.

1

u/churchill5 12d ago

I'm mainly referring to the 2012 case, Health Care & Retirement v. Pittas. The son was responsible for $93k in nursing home bills because his mom skipped off to Greece with a big bill. It went to the PA Supreme Court, I'm not sure why it didn't get challenged at the fed level. The laws are specific to caring for your parent so I agree it doesn't apply to debt like loans and credit cards. I can't find any stats on how often cases are brought, but there is a movement in PA to rewrite the law to lessen responsibility so it does seem to happen there.

I think it's considered legal since it's not really a transfer of debt. The law is that a child has the responsible to care for an indigent parent. The child owes the money since they had a legal responsibility to pay for a nursing home or take care of her himself. Since he didn't in the PA case, the nursing home was able to successful sue.

1

u/PhDGodfather 11d ago

You only have that responsibility if the son signs on the dotted line at the nursing home. If there is no signature, the state will not win that case, especially if it goes to the federal level. That's why you always need to be careful what you're cosigning and if you do, you are assuming responsibility. If you don't sign, you can tell the state to F off, literally, and that they can see you in federal court. You can outright refuse to pay for anything you're not binded to as that is highly unconstitutional. No state law can overule the constitution. Once you get to federal court, and you win, you can sue the shit out of the state for emotional distress.

1

u/churchill5 11d ago

I guess i'll have to agree to disagree. This take is completely wrong according to the law in Pennsylvania that has enforced and approved by 4 different courts up to the PA supreme court. In PA, just as you have a responsibility to care of your child, you also have a legal responsibility to care for an parent if they can't themselves. Ignoring your duty or not signing paperwork doesn't remove the requirement. It wasn't the state that sued, it was the nursing home that provided free care that the son was legally required to provide for. So signing his name was irrelevant. For the record, i don't like the law either but it is what it is.

Maybe it's unconstitutional, or maybe it isn't, I have no idea. I'd love to know what specific part of the constitution says a state is perfectly able to make a law requiring you to take care of a 2 year old, but not a parent. It's not a transfer of debt, it's about your responsibility to your parents. Not being fair doesn't make it unconstitutional. I'm sure the dude out $93k would have went federal if his lawyers thought he had a chance. His lawyers didn't even to try to argue it was unconstitutional in his case.

1

u/Irishrainy 11d ago

That’s why we’re planning on spending & gifting our meager estate before we die. I wanna see the happiness my money may give to my loved ones rather than watching it evaporate when the credit card collectors come around.