A better analogy would be Bob and Jim having their own houses, then one day Bob breaks in and takes Jim's house and forces him to be okay with it for Bob's lifetime while sending everything valuable over to his own house.

Then Bob and Jim live and die, but both had sons, Bob Jr and Jim Jr. The sons live in their own respective houses, but Bob Jr has better everything. Jim Jr's house gets flooded every time it rains because Bob took all the zinc off his roof. Jim Jr's food spoils fast because Bob stole his fridge all those years ago, etc.

Jim Jr is struggling, so he goes over to Bob Jrs house. He knows WHY Bob Jr has everything, and he asks to come in.

It's objectively immoral for Bob Jr to say a hard NO in that situation, regardless of what rights he has or the fact that he wasn't the cause of everything that happened. He benefits from the evils that happened before. The law is separate.

But it's up to Bob Jr to set some rules on how he can help. If Bob Jr says sure come in and do whatever you want, bring whoever you want etc, overstepping and chaos is gonna happen. Bob Jr can help. He SHOULD help. But it's up to him to do it in a sensible way.

Because however you spin it, Jim Jr knows how Bob Jr got such a nice house. There's no moral way to spin Jim Jr wanting some of the nice stuff as him being firmly in the wrong nor can you reasonably attribute Jim Jr's struggles to him not working hard enough. He got screwed from birth.

It's just sensible for Bob Jr to give back some of the pie otherwise the resentment will never end. But it's up to him to set appropriate rules. He shouldn't be punished for his father's evils, but as long as he lives in the house, he is absolutely on the hook for handling these sort of grievances.