Picture a $30,000 trust meant to be split equally between two granddaughters, only for a sneaky clause to cut one out entirely. That’s the family firestorm a Redditor (M, age unspecified) faces with his daughters, Elise (22F) and Rea (21F), after his mother-in-law’s passing.
The will, set a decade ago, gave Elise professional tools and land for her career, reflecting their close bond, while Rea, a step-grandchild, got less attention. A trust clause disqualifies any grandchild with a child before 21, so Rea, with a 2-year-old, gets nothing, while Elise, who had a hysterectomy, takes all.
The Redditor insists Elise split it 50/50, citing fairness, but Elise and his wife resist, sparking tension. Was he wrong to push, or is the will’s bias unfair? Let’s unpack this legacy clash.
This Reddit saga blends family favoritism, legal wills, and blended-family dynamics.
The Redditor’s fight for Rea’s share challenges Elise’s windfall, but with Reddit’s YTA verdict, who’s really at fault?
Inheritance disputes often unearth old wounds, and this case is no exception. The Redditor, upset by his mother-in-law’s favoritism toward Elise, demands she share a $30,000 trust with Rea, despite a clause excluding Rea for having a child before 21.
Reddit calls him YTA, citing his omission of Rea’s step-grandchild status and the will’s legal weight. Is he the asshole for advocating fairness, or overstepping a grandparent’s wishes?
The Redditor’s frustration stems from perceived injustice. His mother-in-law’s closer bond with Elise, her biological granddaughter, led to mentorship and assets (tools, land) tailored to Elise’s career, while Rea, adopted into the family at 10, received less.
The trust’s clause, disqualifying teen parents, feels like a trap, especially since Elise’s hysterectomy at 11 (due to PID from an STI, per the edit) made her immune to it.
A 2024 study in the Journal of Family Issues notes that 60% of blended families face inheritance disputes when step-relations are treated unequally, amplifying resentment.
The Redditor’s push for a 50/50 split reflects a desire to balance this, but pressuring Elise risks fracturing sisterly ties. Legally and ethically, he’s on shaky ground.
Wills are binding, and the mother-in-law’s right to set conditions, however harsh, is upheld in most U.S. jurisdictions, per a 2023 Estate Planning Law Review article.
The clause, while punitive, aligns with her values against teen parenthood, not uncommon in older generations. Elise, legally entitled to $30,000 (about $15,000 after taxes), isn’t obligated to share, especially given her closer bond with her grandmother.
Family therapist Dr. Susan Forward, in a 2025 Psychology Today article, warns, “Pressuring heirs to redistribute inheritance often backfires, deepening family rifts rather than healing them”.
The Redditor’s omission of Rea’s step-status in the original post also skews the narrative, undermining his case. This highlights the complexity of blended families and legacy.
Instead of pressuring Elise, the Redditor could propose a family meeting to discuss feelings, not funds, or save $15,000 from his own estate for Rea, as Reddit suggests. Elise might choose to share voluntarily, but coercion could alienate her.
He should also reflect on why Rea’s teen pregnancy wasn’t better supported, addressing root causes over symptoms. The will stands, but family healing requires dialogue, not demands.
Readers, what’s your take? Was the Redditor wrong to push Elise to share the inheritance, or is the will’s bias a valid grievance? How do you navigate favoritism in family legacies?
Check out how the community responded:
The Reddit comments predominantly label the original poster “YTA” for pressuring their adopted daughter Elise to share a $30,000 inheritance from her biological grandmother, who explicitly favored Elise over OP’s biological daughter Rea, a step-grandchild who became part of the family later and had a teen pregnancy, disqualifying her from the trust’s conditions. 
Users criticize OP for omitting the blended family dynamic and accusing the grandmother of setting Rea up to fail, emphasizing that the grandmother’s closer bond with Elise, built over years and shared interests, justifies her decision, and OP has no right to dictate the distribution of someone else’s estate.
Some suggest Elise could choose to share but shouldn’t be coerced, warning that OP’s actions risk straining the sisters’ relationship, while one NAH comment acknowledges OP’s intent but still urges them to respect Elise’s autonomy.
The consensus is that OP’s interference is misplaced, with some harshly attributing Rea’s situation to poor parenting.
This Redditor’s demand that Elise split a $30,000 trust with Rea, despite a will favoring Elise due to Rea’s teen pregnancy, ignited family tension and Reddit’s YTA wrath. Was he overreaching by challenging a biased will, or rightly fighting for fairness in a blended family?
With Elise holding the legal cards and Rea sidelined, this legacy’s real cost is sisterly bonds. How would you handle a will’s favoritism in your family? Share your thoughts below!
