Despite blood being thicker than water, combining finance with family can be explosive, leading to vicious public slanging matches, endless legal tussles, and even murder in the most extreme cases.

Read on to discover the notorious disputes that have plagued some of the world's wealthiest dynasties, from the Guccis to the Gallos.

All dollar values in US dollars

In 1919, shortly after returning home from fighting in World War I, the Dassler brothers founded Sportfabrik Gebrüder Dassler (Dassler Brothers Sports Shoe Company). The business, known as Geda for short, was operated from their mother's laundry room at the family home in Herzogenaurach, Germany.

Adolf, the conscientious introvert of the two, crafted the footwear. Rudolph, his older and more outgoing sibling, was responsible for sales. The pair set up a small factory and, in next to no time, their innovative spiked trainers were being worn by Germany's Olympic team.

Their company quickly became a household name in Germany. They scored a coup in 1936 when Jesse Owens, the US gold medallist, sported Geda track shoes at the Berlin Olympics and other major competitions, catapulting the brand to global recognition.

However, during World War II, the siblings' relationship soured. 

A range of factors contributed to the falling out. For example, Rudolf believed his brother had plotted to get him conscripted into the army to gain control of the business. Adolf's wife, Käthe, and Rudolf's partner, Friedl, also reportedly detested each other.

In 1948, the siblings divided their company. Adolf created Adidas, while Rudolf formed Puma. Sworn enemies, the two firms had a fierce rivalry that rumbled on for decades, even after the two brothers' deaths in the 1970s. This only came to an end in 2009 when the German sportswear giants finally called a truce.

Pictured here is a statue of Adolf Dassler outside the Adidas HQ in Herzogenaurach, southern Germany.

Guccio Gucci was the founder and patriarch of the eponymous Italian fashion empire. After his death in 1953, his sons Aldo (pictured), Rodolfo, and Vasco took the company global. Aldo, dubbed the "Michelangelo of merchandising", was at the helm as chairman.

When Vasco passed away in 1974, Aldo and Rodolfo split the family business 50-50, with the former opting to give each of his three sons a 3.3% share in the company. And that's when the trouble began...

In 1980, Aldo's son Paolo (pictured) tried to launch his own business using the Gucci name. Aldo disapproved and sued. Paolo counter-sued, then teamed up with Rodolfo's son Maurizio, who had, by this point, inherited his father's 50% stake.

They ousted Aldo from the firm and Paolo dug the knife in further when he informed on Aldo to the IRS for tax evasion. Aldo served one year and one day in a US jail, but things didn't end well for Paolo and Maurizio either.

In 1987, the free-spending Paolo sold his shares in the company to Investcorp for $42.5 million, the equivalent of $118 million (£92m) in today's money. He went on to file for bankruptcy and died in poverty in London in 1995.

Maurizio, whose mismanagement of Gucci almost ran the business into the ground, was forced to give up his stake to Investcorp in 1993, receiving $170 million, or $370 million (£289m) in 2024 money. He was murdered two years later after his vengeful ex-wife Patrizia Reggiani hired a hitman, as depicted to dramatic effect in the 2021 movie House of Gucci.

Following World War II, the Albrecht brothers, Karl and Theo, took over their mother's humble grocery store business in Essen, Germany. They transformed it into Albrecht KG, "the first discount store in the world".

By 1960, the siblings owned 300 stores with an annual turnover of around $25 million, the equivalent of $265 million (£206m) in today's money.

That same year, the brothers split the chain into two separate groups after falling out over whether they should sell cigarettes. Theo headed Albrecht-Diskont Nord, which sold tobacco products, while Karl became the CEO of Albrecht-Diskont Süd, which did not.

The two entities were named Aldi Nord and Aldi Süd in 1962, and have been financially and legally separate since 1966.

As well as the feud between the two brothers, the Albrechts have been rocked by further familial conflict. The will of Theo Albrecht's widow sparked a family rift when she died in November 2018. The so-called Aldi "grande dame" Cäcilie Albrecht settled a score with the five children of her late son and his widow Babette (pictured), accusing them of lavish spending that was out of line with the company's frugal philosophy. Cäcilie excluded her son's children and her daughter-in-law from any future roles in the firm.

To complicate matters further, Babette's son Nicolay sued his mother for allegedly embezzling funds from a family trust.

As well as being hit by a series of devastating tragedies due to the so-called family "curse", which included everything from premature deaths to devastating drink and drug addictions, the spectacularly wealthy Getty clan was also embroiled in an acrimonious feud that dragged on for years.

The almighty quarrel centred around the $4 billion (as of 1985) Sarah C. Getty Trust, set up in 1934 by oil baron J. Paul Getty (pictured) and his mother Sarah. That $4 billion equates to around $11.7 billion (£9.1bn) in today's money.

Following J. Paul's death in 1976, his 26 heirs fought over the division of the trust in a drawn-out court battle that rumbled on for years. The dispute was finally laid to rest in 1985 when the last hold-out, Tara Getty, the 16-year-old son of John Paul Jr. (who was the third of J. Paul's five sons), agreed to the court-ordered settlement in the interest of “family peace”.

Tara is pictured here as a baby with his mother Talitha, who died of a drug overdose in 1971.

The trust was divided into four smaller trusts of $750 million ($2.2bn/£1.7bn today) each, with the remaining $1 billion ($2.9bn/£2.3bn today) set aside to cover taxes. While the majority of the heirs cashed in big-time, J. Ronald (pictured), who was J. Paul's son with his third wife Adolphine, was virtually disinherited.

He was bequeathed just $3,000 a year and attempted in vain to extract more money for himself. He eventually filed for bankruptcy in 2005.

The Gallo family might be known for their wine but a deep-rooted disagreement sat at the heart of their business. The feud involving Ernest (pictured) and Julio versus Joe Jr., the brothers behind America's largest family-owned wine producer, can be traced back to a shocking event.

In June 1933, the siblings' father Joe Sr., who ran the Gallo Wine Company, shot his wife Susie dead before taking his own life. Aged 24 at the time, Ernest assumed control of the family business, while 23-year-old Julio took care of production.  

Together, Ernest and Julio formed E & J Gallo Winery. Their younger brother Joe Jr., who was just 13 years old in 1933, was eventually hired as an employee but later fired. The two older brothers worked tirelessly to make their business a success, with the goal of becoming "the Campbell Soup Company of the wine industry".

They started by producing cheap, fortified wine products, such as Thunderbird and Night Train Express, before deciding to go upmarket. By the 1980s, the firm had become one of the top winemakers in the USA.

In 1983, Joe Jr. opened a cheese factory with a view to marketing its products using the Gallo name. Resentful that the young upstart would be profiting from their hard work, the elder Gallo brothers sued him in 1986 for trademark infringement.

Joe Jr. countersued, claiming he'd been wrongfully excluded from the family business after Joe Sr.'s death. He lost his case and, needless to say, never spoke to his older brothers again.

The dispute between the super-rich Koch brothers – with Charles and David on one side and William and Frederick on the other – has been described by The New York Times as “one of the biggest, meanest and long-running” of family feuds.

The roots of the conflict stretch back to 1967, when Charles (pictured) became chairman of his late father's business, Koch Industries. He's alleged to have undertaken a campaign of blackmail to force Frederick to give up his stake in the company.

All four brothers had equal interests in the family firm, but William (pictured), backed up by Frederick, clashed with Charles and David over the running of Koch Industries. In 1980, William was fired from the company for attempting to oust Charles, which led to an agreement in 1983 whereby William and Frederick agreed to relinquish their stakes in exchange for around $700 million, the equivalent of $2.2 billion (£1.7bn) in today's money.

This resulted in almost two decades of litigation, with William and Frederick arguing that they had, in fact, been duped out of their fair share.

The dispute became ugly, with William and Frederick accusing their brothers of racketeering and hiding assets and cash. The disgruntled duo even sued their mother at one point. For years, the four brothers communicated only through lawyers but finally reconciled in 2001, although the terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

David (pictured) died in 2019 at the age of 79, while Frederick passed away the following year.

The clan behind South Korea's leading family-run chaebol Samsung has been riven by strife, which culminated in a showdown in the courts in the early 2010s.

Following the death of founder Lee Byung-chul (pictured) in 1987, his named successor, his third-born son Lee Kun-hee, took over as chairman and transformed the conglomerate into a global electronics powerhouse.

In 2012, Lee Byung-chull's eldest son, Lee Maeng-hee, and daughter, Lee Suk-hee, launched a legal bid for stakes in the company worth $4.1 billion, the equivalent of $5.6 billion (£4.3bn) in today's money.

They alleged that they'd been bequeathed the shares by their father, but had been cheated out of them by Lee Kun-hee (pictured). In turn, he argued that the pair had been kicked out of the family and therefore weren't entitled to anything.

Lee Maeng-hee had fallen out with his father and was subsequently sidelined, while his sister was shunned for marrying a scion of Samsung's arch-rival LG. In the end, following two trials, the South Korean courts ruled in favour of Lee Kun-hee, and Lee Maeng-kee gave up on appealing to the Supreme Court.

He offered to make peace with his brother but died in 2015 before the pair could meet. Lee Kun-hee passed away in 2020.

Like the Gettys, Australia's Rinehart family has been at war over a bumper trust fund. The Hope Margaret Hancock Trust was established in 1988 by the late iron ore magnate Lang Hancock.

Hancock appointed his daughter Gina Rinehart (pictured), who's now the richest person Down Under, as trustee. He named his four grandchildren as beneficiaries, with each allotted an equal share.

The feud over the trust, which is worth billions, began in 2011, when Rinehart's children launched a legal bid to remove their mother as trustee. Her kids were originally set to cash in on the trust when Gina's daughter Ginia (pictured) turned 25 in 2012.

However, their mother extended the vesting date from 2011 to 2068, resulting in the court action. Ginia initially joined her siblings in their court battle but later switched sides to support her mother.

Rinehart's other three children Bianca, David, and Hope continued with the legal action. However, Hope withdrew from the case after receiving a multimillion-dollar loan from her mother.

Bianca (pictured) and David eventually emerged victorious in 2015, with the New South Wales Supreme Court appointing Bianca as trustee. However, the family's legal wrangles have continued, with Bianca and David pursuing lengthy court battles over ownership of lucrative iron ore mines.

Now discover 25 of the world's most infamous inheritance disputes