Why I Almost Never Recommend Joint Ownership with Adult Children

I’ve reviewed thousands of estate plans. I almost never recommend adding adult children as joint owners on a house or bank account.

Not because it never works—but because it usually backfires. The meagre benefits aren't worth the risks.

It’s often pitched as a shortcut. A way to avoid probate or make things “easier” when someone dies. But in reality, it adds legal risk, potential tax exposure, and family tension.

Here’s what people don’t realize:
Adding a child as joint owner can trigger capital gains tax—especially on real estate. It also exposes the asset to their creditors, divorce, or bankruptcy. Elder financial abuse is also increasingly common, and I doubt any of those parents thought it was going to happen with their child, but it did.

And after death, joint assets raise one brutal question: was that asset meant to pass entirely to that child, or be shared like everything else in the estate?

That’s where the disputes begin.

Joint ownership blurs the line between a gift and a convenience. The law doesn’t always interpret it the way you meant—and the family almost never agrees on what you meant either.

It’s not a planning tool. It’s a gamble. All for 1.5% probate tax savings. Is that worth it?

If your plan relies on joint ownership to work, it probably won’t.

There are better ways to handle probate, taxes, and timing—without handing over control or setting your kids up to fight.

If you’re ready for a plan that holds up in real life, book a call →

This site shares real-world insights from my work as an estate planning lawyer. It’s not legal advice, I'm not your lawyer, and it won’t cover every situation. But it will show you what tends to go wrong—and what usually holds up.