Every month, I see at least one article about fighting among family members of a recently deceased celebrity. Famous people, lots of money and poor planning make for a potent cocktail of discontent.

Most financial planners know that fighting among heirs is commonplace among the rest of America, too. Money is at the root of many of these disputes but as I alluded to in my June column on helping the terminally ill, the most common topics of debate among heirs are funeral arrangements and the disposition of personal belongings.

Without clear instructions from the deceased, surviving family members face several decisions that must be made in a short period of time. Most commonly fights are about what to do with the body, determining a final resting place and where, when and what a memorial service might be.

Absent a religious reason for one over another, you can choose to have your body buried or cremated. If you think about it, and most people don’t really want to think about this, both of those options are pretty gross. We’ve seen some heirs flip out arguing for one or the other because the deceased was silent on the issue.

It is common for heirs to disagree about where to bury the body or spread the ashes. One heir will insist that a church funeral be held while another thinks the departed would have preferred an informal open house type of event. Some think there shouldn’t be any service of any kind.

Then there is the obituary. Who is going to write it and what will be said? We’ve seen many a battle over the wording. Some people think obits are a waste of time and money.

Fights about the “stuff” are often not really about the stuff. They are fights about tensions that already existed and come to a head when the stresses related to a death arise.

Terry died and her brother Kevin called the nursing home to ask about Terry’s ring. The rest of the family went ballistic on poor Kevin. See, Kevin was far from poor. He had “more money than God” according to another sibling and by asking about the ring, the jealousy and resentment flowed. 

Kevin was accused of being a “greedy bastard” that only looked out for himself and didn’t care about Terry or the rest of the family.  In their narrative, once he got rich, Kevin had “no use for the rest of them.”

It took over two years for the family to understand and believe that Kevin was truly asking about the ring rather than asking for the ring. It was a diamond solitaire the size of a small ice cube and Kevin was concerned it would be stolen. Ironically, his wealth helped him make his case. He really didn’t need the ring.

Many of the arguments I described are preventable simply by having clients convey their wishes clearly. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of how a simple thing is often not easy.

A lot of people don’t outline what they want because of the simple fact they don’t actually know what they want. Contemplating one’s demise can be nearly impossible for some and is uncomfortable for most. It seems so distant. Heck, we want it to be distant.

From what I have observed over the last quarter century, a nudge from a trusted advisor or respected family member or friend can get the conversation and the process started.

One way that this happens is the advisor or family member answers when opportunity knocks. This nudge can be far from gentle. 

I don’t particularly care for it, but it’s a fact of life that bad things happen. At some point in time, something will happen to the reluctant client or to someone they know or with whom they feel a connection. The event can be a health scare, a fender bender, the death of a neighbor or old classmate, or a million other things. The event is like a slap, waking them up to the reality that these things happen and often prompting them to consider “what if.”

It is the slap effect that makes it a good time to re-engage the client on these issues. Everything seems more tangible and real and sometimes, a bit scary.  The planning process can alleviate a lot of that anxiety.

The obvious downside to this is that waiting for a catalytic event is a crapshoot. While something is bound to happen, what and when exactly is unknown. The bad event could be a fatal heart attack or a debilitating stroke that leaves your client without the ability to think through the issues.

Fortunately, I have known only a few clients that needed to be jarred before acting. It is much better to initiate the conversation and revisit it regularly. You may need to be a bit of a benevolent nag.

By far, the most successful thing I have done to get people thinking about these issues is to simply talk about how these things affected other people. Rather than wait for an event, bring an actual event to life. Tell the true life story. 

Have you ever settled an estate or arranged a funeral? Tell your story. The process had its stresses, didn’t it? Tell your client how you felt, when you were frustrated and why, what worked well and why, what made it easier or harder on you, and who made it easier or harder on you.

If you haven’t tackled these things personally, one of your clients surely has. Tell their story, the good, the bad, and the ugly, anonymously, of course.

Many planners zero in on whether beneficiary designations and asset titling are correct. Those things are obviously important, but we find many estate plans lack any writings about funeral arrangements and most lack any writings about the disposition of personal effects.

I will often share with clients what happened to Terry and Kevin. I’ll contrast that with Betty’s story. 

On Christmas, two years before she passed away, with all three of her children present, Betty gave each of them some of her personal effects. Mary got Betty’s engagement ring, Bob got Betty’s husband’s military regalia including the folded flag from his funeral, and Jim got the piano. 

Initially, Mary, Bob, and Jim were worried about Betty’s health. Once they understood she was fine and only wished to make sure her wishes were fulfilled, they were fine. Mary and Bob were quite pleased actually. It took Jim a little longer to accept it because he wanted dad’s military items and he and Bob had been fighting for decades. In a fairly short period of time, his love of music, a passion he shared with Betty, pushed that jealousy aside.

You can’t get much clearer than physically giving things away in the presence of others. In Betty’s case, the gifts were very effective in avoiding conflict, but, moreover, Betty really enjoyed making the gifts. She believed the right people got the right things and she knew she stopped an argument between Bob and Jim before it could begin.

Now, despite its effectiveness, I am not suggesting you tell all your clients to give their most cherished items away right now. Gifting like this won’t work for a lot of families. Bringing the subject up can reopen old wounds. Nonetheless, telling the story can get clients thinking and talking about what worked or didn’t and why. That can make it easier for them to determine and articulate what they want and don’t want.

Betty’s story isn’t a cure-all. I doubt one exists when it comes to family squabbling. It is just a story about how addressing issues before they arise by sharing one’s wishes in clear ways can minimize avoidable problems and even bring some joy to a sometimes challenging topic. 

Isn’t that part of what planning is supposed to do?

Dan Moisand, CFP, has been featured as one of America’s top independent financial advisors by Financial Planning, Financial Advisor, Investment Advisor, Investment News, Journal of Financial Planning, Accounting Today, Research, Wealth Manager and Worth magazines. He practices in Melbourne, Fla. You can reach him at [email protected].